[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 251 (Tuesday, December 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80386-80413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31333]
[[Page 80385]]
Vol. 78
Tuesday,
No. 251
December 31, 2013
Part IV
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska;
Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 /
Notices
[[Page 80386]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD039
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Survey in Cook Inlet,
Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS received an application from Apache Alaska Corporation
(Apache) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take
marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a proposed 3D seismic
survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, between March 1, 2014, and December 31,
2014. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
requests comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to Apache to take, by
Level B harassment only, five species of marine mammals during the
specified activity.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January
29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox
address for providing email comments is [email protected]. NMFS is
not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one
provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
An electronic copy of the application used in this document may be
obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the
contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting
the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment,
during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].''
Summary of Request
On July 18, 2013, NMFS received an application from Apache for the
taking of marine mammals incidental to a 3D seismic survey program.
Based on comments and questions from NMFS, the application was revised.
Apache submitted a new application on November 11, 2013. The
application was determined adequate and complete on November 20, 2013.
Apache proposes to conduct a 3D seismic survey in Cook Inlet,
Alaska. The proposed activity would occur for approximately 8-9 months
between March 1 and December 31, 2014. In-water airguns will only be
active for approximately 2-3 hours during each of the slack tide
periods. There are approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour
period; therefore, airgun operations will be active during
approximately 8-12 hours per day, if weather conditions allow. The
following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to
result in the take of marine mammals: seismic airgun operations. Take,
by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of five species/stocks is
anticipated to result from the specified activity.
This is the third IHA application NMFS has received from Apache for
takes of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey in
Cook Inlet. On April 30, 2012, NMFS issued a 1-year IHA to Apache for
their first season of seismic acquisition in Cook Inlet (77 FR 27720).
NMFS issued a second 1-year IHA to Apache in February 2013 (78 FR
12720, February 25, 2013). That IHA expires on March 1, 2014. Except
for the location and the size of the survey area, the activities
proposed for the 2014 survey season are essentially the same as those
conducted during the first season. No seismic survey operations were
conducted under the second IHA.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
Apache proposes to conduct a 3D seismic survey in Cook Inlet,
Alaska, in an area that encompasses approximately 4,238 km\2\ (1,636
mi\2\) of intertidal and offshore areas (see Figure 2 in Apache's
application). Vessels will lay and retrieve nodal sensors on the sea
floor in periods of low current, or, in the case of the intertidal
area, during high tide over a 24-hour period. Apache proposes to use
two synchronized vessels. Each source vessel will be equipped with
compressors and 2,400 cubic inch (in\3\) airgun arrays. Additionally,
one of the source vessels will be equipped with a 440 in\3\ shallow
water source array, which can be deployed at high tide in the
intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (6 ft) of water. The two source
vessels do not fire the airguns simultaneously; rather, each vessel
fires a shot every 24 seconds, leaving 12 seconds between shots.
The operation will utilize two source vessels, three cable/nodal
deployment
[[Page 80387]]
and retrieval operations vessels, a mitigation/monitoring vessel, a
node re-charging and housing vessel, and two small vessels for
personnel transport and node support in the extremely shallow waters in
the intertidal area. Water depths for the proposed program will range
from 0-128 m (0-420 ft).
Apache has acquired over 800,000 acres of oil and gas leases in
Cook Inlet since 2010 with the primary objective to explore for and
develop oil and gas resources in Cook Inlet. Seismic surveys are
designed to collect bathymetric and sub-seafloor data that allow the
evaluation of potential shallow faults, gas zones, and archeological
features at prospective exploration drilling locations. In the spring
of 2011, Apache conducted a seismic test program to evaluate the
feasibility of using new nodal (no cables) technology seismic recording
equipment for operations in Cook Inlet. This test program found and
provided important input to assist in finalizing the design of the 3D
seismic program in Cook Inlet (the nodal technology was determined to
be feasible). Apache began seismic onshore acquisition on the west side
of Cook Inlet in September 2011 and offshore acquisition in May 2012
under an IHA issued by NMFS for April 30, 2012 through April 30, 2013
(77 FR 27720, May 11, 2012) (see Figure 1 in Apache's application).
Dates and Duration
Apache proposes to acquire offshore/transition zone operations for
approximately 8 to 9 months in offshore areas in open water periods
from March 1 through December 31, 2014. During each 24-hour period,
seismic support activities may be conducted throughout the entire
period; however, in-water airguns will only be active for approximately
2-3 hours during each of the slack tide periods. There are
approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour period; therefore,
airgun operations will be active during approximately 8-12 hours per
day, if weather conditions allow. Two airgun source vessels will work
concurrently on the spread, acquiring source lines approximately 12 km
(7.5 mi) in length. Apache anticipates that a crew can acquire
approximately 6.2 km\2\ (2.4 mi\2\) per day, assuming a crew can work
8-12 hours per day. Thus, the actual survey duration will take
approximately 160 days over the course of 8 to 9 months. The vessels
will be mobilized out of Homer or Anchorage with resupply runs
occurring multiple times per week out of Homer, Anchorage, or Nikiski.
Specified Geographic Region
Each phase of the Apache program would encounter land, intertidal
transition zone, and marine environments in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
However, only the portions occurring in the intertidal zone and marine
environments have the potential to take marine mammals. The land-based
portion of the proposed program would not result in underwater sound
levels that would rise to the level of a marine mammal take.
The proposed location of Apache's acquisition plan has been divided
into areas denoted as Zone 1 and Zone 2 (see Figure 2 in Apache's
application). Zone 1 is located in mid-Cook Inlet and extends on the
east coast from approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) south of Point Possession
to 25 km (15.5 mi) north of the East Foreland. Zone 1 only reaches into
mid-channel and parallels the western shoreline from the Beluga River
south to Bertha Bay. Zone 2 begins at the southern edge of Zone 1 (25
km [15.5 mi] north of the East Foreland) on both the east and west
coasts and extends down to approximately Harriet Point on the west
coast and to an area about 12 km (7.5 mi) north of Homer. Zones 1 and 2
together encompass approximately 4,238 km\2\ (1,636 mi\2\) of
intertidal and offshore areas. Although Apache would only operate in a
portion of this entire area between March 1 and December 31, 2014,
Apache has requested to operate in this entire region in order to allow
for operational flexibility. There are numerous factors that influence
the survey areas, including the geology of the Cook Inlet area, other
permitting restrictions (i.e., commercial fishing, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game refuges), seismic imaging of leases held by other
entities with whom Apache has agreements (e.g., data sharing), overlap
of sources and receivers to obtain the necessary seismic imaging data,
and general operational restrictions (ice, weather, environmental
conditions, marine life activity, etc.). Water depths for the program
will range from 0-128 m (0-420 ft).
Detailed Description of Activities
(1) Recording System
The recording system is an autonomous system ``nodal'' (i.e., no
cables), made up of at least two types of nodes; one for the land and
one for the intertidal and marine environment. For the land operator, a
single-component sensor land node will be used (see Figure 4 in
Apache's application); the inter-tidal and marine zone operators will
use a submersible multi-component system made up of three velocity
sensors and a hydrophone (see Figure 5 in application). These systems
have the ability to record continuous data. Inline receiver intervals
for the node systems will be 50 m (165 ft). The nodes are deployed in
patches for the seismic source and deployed for up to 15 days. The
deployment length is limited by battery length and data storage
capacity.
The geometry methodology that Apache will use to gather seismic
data is called patch shooting. This type of seismic survey requires the
use of multiple vessels for cable layout/pickup, recording, and
sourcing. Operations begin by laying node lines on the seafloor
parallel to each other with a node line spacing of approximately 402 m
(1,320 ft). Apache's patch will have 6-8 node lines (receivers) that
generally run perpendicular to the shoreline for transition zones and
parallel to the shoreline for offshore areas. The node lines will be
separated by either 402 or 503 m (1,320 or 1,650 ft). Inline spacing
between nodes will be 50 m (165 ft). The node vessels will lay the
entire patch on the seafloor prior to the airgun activity. Individual
vessels are capable of carrying up to 400 nodes. With three node
vessels operating simultaneously, a patch can be laid down in a single
24-hour period, weather permitting. A sample transition zone patch is
depicted in Figure 6 in Apache's application. A sample offshore patch
is depicted in Figure 7 in Apache's application.
As the patches are acquired, the node lines will be moved either
side-to-side or inline to the next patch's location. Figure 8 in
Apache's application depicts multiple side-to-side patches that are
acquired individually but when seamed together at the processing phase,
create continuous coverage along the coastline.
(2) Sensor Positioning
Transition Zone/Offshore Components: Once the nodes are in place on
the seafloor, the exact position of each node is required. There are
several techniques used to locate the nodes on the seafloor, depending
on the depth of the water. In very shallow water, the node positions
are either surveyed by a land surveyor when the tide is low, or the
position is accepted based on the position at which the navigator has
laid the unit.
In deeper water, there are two recognized techniques, known as
Ocean Bottom Receiver Location (OBRL) and Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL)
methods. For sensor positioning, Apache will employ the USBL method by
using a hull or pole mounted pinger to send a signal to a transponder
which is
[[Page 80388]]
attached to each node. The transponders are coded, and the crew knows
which transponder goes with which node prior to the layout. The
transponder's response (once pinged) is added together with several
other responses to create a suite of ranges and bearings between the
pinger boat and the node. Those data are then calculated to precisely
position the node. In good conditions, the nodes can be interrogated as
they are laid out. It is also common for the nodes to be pinged after
they have been laid out. The pinger that will be used is a Sonardyne
Shallow Water Cable Positioning system. The two instruments used are a
Scout USBL Transceiver that operates at a frequency of 33-55 kilohertz
(kHz) at a max source level of 188 decibels referenced to one micro
Pascal (dB re 1 [mu]Pa) at 1 m; and a LR USBL Transponder that operates
at a frequency of 35-50 kHz at a source level of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at
1 m.
Onshore/Intertidal Components: Onshore and intertidal locating of
source and receivers will be accomplished with Differential Global
Positioning System/roving units (DGPS/RTK) equipped with telemetry
radios which will be linked to a base station established on the M/V
Arctic Wolf or similar vessel. Survey crews will have both helicopter
and light tracked vehicle support. Offshore source and receivers will
be positioned with an integrated navigation system utilizing DGPS/RTK
link to the land located base stations. The integrated navigation
system will be capable of many features that are critical to efficient
safe operations. The system will include a hazard display system that
can be loaded with known obstructions or exclusion zones. Typically the
vessel displays are also loaded with the day-to-day operational
hazards, buoys, etc. This display gives a quick reference when a
potential question regarding positioning or tracking arises. In the
case of inclement weather, the hazard display can and has been used to
vector vessels to safety.
(3) Seismic Source
Transition Zone/Offshore Components: Apache proposes to use two
synchronized source vessels in time. The source vessels, M/V Peregrine
Falcon and the M/V Arctic Wolf (or similar vessels), will be equipped
with compressors and 2,400 in\3\ airgun arrays (1,200 in\3\, if
feasible). The M/V Peregrine Falcon, or similar, will be equipped with
a 440 in\3\ shallow water source, which it can deploy at high tide in
the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (6 ft) of water. Most of the
airgun sound energy is contained at frequencies below approximately 500
Hz. The modeled broadband source level for the array was 251 dB re 1uPa
peak and 238 dB re 1 uPa rms. Source lines are orientated perpendicular
to the node lines and parallel to the beach (see red lines on Figure 6
in Apache's application). The two source vessels will traverse source
lines of the same patch using a shooting technique called ping/pong.
The ping/pong methodology will have the first source boat commence the
source effort. As the first airgun pop is initiated, the second gun
boat is sent a command and begins a countdown to pop its guns 12
seconds later than the first vessel. The first source boat would then
take its second pop 12 seconds after the second vessel has popped and
so on. The vessels try to manage their speed so that they cover
approximately 50 m (165 ft) between pops. The objective is to generate
source positions for each of the two arrays close to a 50 m (165 ft)
interval along each of the source lines in a patch. Vessel speeds range
from 2-4 knots (2.3-4.6 miles/hour [mph]). The source effort will
average 10-12 hours per day.
Each source line is approximately 12.9 km (8 mi) long. A single
vessel is capable of acquiring a source line in approximately 1 hour.
With two source vessels operating simultaneously, a patch of
approximately 3,900 source points can be acquired in a single day
assuming a 10-12 hour source effort. When the data from the patch of
nodes have been acquired, the node vessels pick up the patch and roll
it to the next location. The pickup effort takes approximately 18
hours.
Onshore/Intertidal Components: The onshore source effort will be
shot holes. These holes are drilled every 50 m (165 ft) along source
lines which are orientated perpendicular to the receiver lines and
parallel to the coast. To access the onshore drill sites, Apache would
use a combination of helicopter portable and tracked vehicle drills. At
each source location, Apache will drill to the prescribed hole depth of
approximately 10 m (35 ft) and load it with 4 kilograms (kg) (8.8
pounds [lbs]) of explosive (likely Orica OSX Pentolite Explosive). The
hole will be capped with a ``smart cap'' that will make it impossible
to detonate the explosive without the proper blaster. At the request of
NMFS, Apache conducted a sound source characterization (SSC) of the
onshore shot hole to determine if underwater received sound levels
exceeded the NMFS thresholds for harassment. The results of the SSC
verified received sound levels in the water are not expected to exceed
NMFS' MMPA harassment thresholds (see Appendix A of Apache's
application), therefore, onshore sources are not discussed further in
this application.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could
occur near operations in Cook Inlet include three cetacean species, all
odontocetes (toothed whales): beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas),
killer whale (Orcinus orca), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
and two pinniped species: harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and
Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). The marine mammal species that
is likely to be encountered most widely (in space and time) throughout
the period of the planned surveys is the harbor seal. While killer
whales and Steller sea lions have been sighted in upper Cook Inlet,
their occurrence is considered rare in that portion of the Inlet.
Of the five marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed
marine survey area, Cook Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions are
listed as endangered under the ESA (Steller sea lions are listed as two
distinct population segments (DPSs), an eastern and a western DPS; the
relevant DPS in Cook Inlet is the western DPS). The eastern DPS was
recently removed from the endangered species list (78 FR 66139,
November 4, 2013). These species are also designated as ``depleted''
under the MMPA. Despite these designations, Cook Inlet beluga whales
and the western DPS of Steller sea lions have not made significant
progress towards recovery. Data indicate that the Cook Inlet population
of beluga whales has been decreasing at a rate of 1.1 percent annually
between 2001 and 2011 (Allen and Angliss, 2013). A recent review of the
status of the population indicated that there is an 80% chance that the
population will decline further (Hobbs and Shelden 2008). Counts of
non-pup Steller sea lions at trend sites in the Alaska western stock
increased 11% from 2000 to 2004 (Allen and Angliss, 2013). These were
the first region-wide increases for the western stock since
standardized surveys began in the 1970s and were due to increased or
stable counts in all regions except the western Aleutian Islands.
Between 2004 and 2008, Alaska western non-pup counts increased only 3%:
eastern Gulf of Alaska (Prince William Sound area) counts were higher
and Kenai Peninsula through Kiska Island counts were stable, but
western Aleutian counts continued to decline. Johnson (2010) analyzed
western Steller sea lion population trends in Alaska and concluded that
the
[[Page 80389]]
overall 2000-2008 trend was a decline 1.5% per year; however, there
continues to be considerable regional variability in recent trends
(Allen and Angliss, 2013). NMFS has not been able to complete a non-pup
survey of the AK western stock since 2008, due largely to weather and
closure of the Air Force base on Shemya in 2009 and 2010.
Pursuant to the ESA, critical habitat has been designated for Cook
Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The proposed action falls
within critical habitat designated in Cook Inlet for beluga whales but
is not within critical habitat designated for Steller sea lions. The
portion of beluga whale critical habitat--identified as Area 2 in the
critical habitat designation--where the seismic survey will occur is
located south of the Area 1 critical habitat where belugas are
particularly vulnerable to impacts due to their high seasonal densities
and the biological importance of the area for foraging, nursery, and
predator avoidance. Area 2 is based on dispersed fall and winter
feeding and transit areas in waters where whales typically appear in
smaller densities or deeper waters (76 FR 20180, April 11, 2011).
There are several species of mysticetes that have been observed
infrequently in lower Cook Inlet, including minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale
(Balaenoptera physalus), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus).
Because of their infrequent occurrence in the location of seismic
acquisition, they are not included in this proposed IHA notice. Sea
otters also occur in Cook Inlet. However, sea otters are managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are therefore not considered further
in this proposed IHA notice.
Cetaceans
1. Beluga Whales
Cook Inlet beluga whales reside in Cook Inlet year-round although
their distribution and density changes seasonally. Factors that are
likely to influence beluga whale distribution within the inlet include
prey availability, predation pressure, sea-ice cover, and other
environmental factors, reproduction, sex and age class, and human
activities (Rugh et al., 2000; NMFS 2008). Seasonal movement and
density patterns as well as site fidelity appear to be closely linked
to prey availability, coinciding with seasonal salmon and eulachon
concentrations (Moore et al., 2000). For example, during spring and
summer, beluga whales are generally concentrated near the warmer waters
of river mouths where prey availability is high and predator occurrence
is low (Huntington 2000; Moore et al., 2000). During the winter
(November to April), belugas disperse throughout the upper and mid-
inlet areas, with animals found between Kalgin Island and Point
Possession (Rugh et al., 2000). During these months, there are
generally fewer observations of beluga whales in the Anchorage and Knik
Arm area (NMML 2004; Rugh et al., 2004).
Beluga whales use several areas of the upper Cook Inlet for
repeated summer and fall feeding. The primary hotspots for beluga
feeding include the Big and Little Susitna rivers, Eagle Bay to Eklutna
River, Ivan Slough, Theodore River, Lewis River, and Chickaloon River
and Bay (NMFS, 2008). Availability of prey species appears to be the
most influential environmental variable affecting Cook Inlet beluga
whale distribution and relative abundance (Moore et al., 2000). The
patterns and timing of eulachon and salmon runs have a strong influence
on beluga whale feeding behavior and their seasonal movements (Nemeth
et al., 2007; NMFS, 2008). The presence of prey species may account for
the seasonal changes in beluga group size and composition (Moore et
al., 2000). Aerial and vessel-based monitoring conducted by Apache
during the March 2011 2D test program in Cook Inlet reported 33 beluga
sightings. One of the sightings was of a large group (~25 individuals
on March 27, 2011) of feeding/milling belugas near the mouth of the
Drift River. Also on March 27, 2011, protected species observers (PSOs)
onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher reported a group of seven beluga whales
approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi) from the vessel. Land-based PSOs were
able to observe this group of beluga whales for approximately 2.5 hrs.
A single beluga whale was observed near the mouth of the Drift River by
the aerial-based monitors on March 28, 2011, prior to the seismic ramp-
up period. If belugas are present during the late summer/early fall,
they are more likely to occur in shallow areas near river mouths in
upper Cook Inlet. For example, no beluga whales were sighted in Trading
Bay during the sound source verification (SSV) conducted in September
2011 because during this time of year they are more likely to be in the
upper regions of Cook Inlet. During the SSV in May 2012, belugas were
sighted on both days near Drift River (some of which were observed to
be feeding).
2. Killer Whales
In general, killer whales are rare in upper Cook Inlet, where
transient killer whales are known to feed on beluga whales, and
resident killer whales are known to feed on anadromous fish (Shelden et
al., 2003). The availability of these prey species largely determines
the likeliest times for killer whales to be in the area. Between 1993
and 2004, 23 sightings of killer whales were reported in the lower Cook
Inlet during aerial surveys by Rugh et al. (2005). Surveys conducted
over a span of 20 years by Shelden et al. (2003) reported 11 sightings
in upper Cook Inlet between Turnagain Arm, Susitna Flats, and Knik Arm.
No killer whales were spotted during recent surveys by Funk et al.
(2005), Ireland et al. (2005), Brueggeman et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2008),
or Prevel Ramos et al. (2006, 2008). Eleven killer whale strandings
have been reported in Turnagain Arm, six in May 1991 and five in August
1993. Therefore, very few killer whales, if any, are expected to
approach or be in the vicinity of the action area.
3. Harbor Porpoise
The most recent estimated density for harbor porpoises in Cook
Inlet is 7.2 per 1,000 km\2\ (Dahlheim et al., 2000) indicating that
only a small number use Cook Inlet. Harbor porpoise have been reported
in lower Cook Inlet from Cape Douglas to the West Foreland, Kachemak
Bay, and offshore (Rugh et al., 2005). Small numbers of harbor
porpoises have been consistently reported in upper Cook Inlet between
April and October, except for a recent survey that recorded higher than
usual numbers (Prevel Ramos et al., 2008). Prevel Ramos et al. (2008)
reported 17 harbor porpoises from spring to fall 2006, while other
studies reported 14 in the spring of 2007 (Brueggeman et al. 2007) and
12 in the fall of 2007 (Brueggeman et al. 2008). During the spring and
fall of 2007, 129 harbor porpoises were reported between Granite Point
and the Susitna River; however, the reason for the increase in numbers
of harbor porpoise in the upper Cook Inlet remains unclear and the
disparity with the result of past sightings suggests that it may be an
anomaly. The spike in reported sightings occurred in July, which was
followed by sightings of 79 harbor porpoises in August, 78 in
September, and 59 in October 2007. It is important to note that the
number of porpoises counted more than once was unknown, which suggests
that the actual numbers are likely smaller than those reported. In
addition, recent passive acoustic
[[Page 80390]]
research in Cook Inlet by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
the National Marine Mammal Laboratory have indicated that harbor
porpoises occur in the area more frequently than previously thought,
particularly in the West Foreland area in the spring (NMFS 2011);
however overall numbers are still unknown at this time.
Pinnipeds
Two species of pinnipeds may be encountered in Cook Inlet: harbor
seal and Steller sea lion.
1. Harbor Seals
Harbor seals inhabit the coastal and estuarine waters of Cook
Inlet. In general, harbor seals are more abundant in lower Cook Inlet
than in upper Cook Inlet, but they do occur in the upper inlet
throughout most of the year (Rugh et al. 2005). Harbor seals are non-
migratory; their movements are associated with tides, weather, season,
food availability, and reproduction. The major haulout sites for harbor
seals are located in lower Cook Inlet, and their presence in the upper
inlet coincides with seasonal runs of prey species. For example, harbor
seals are commonly observed along the Susitna River and other
tributaries along upper Cook Inlet during the eulachon and salmon
migrations (NMFS, 2003). During aerial surveys of upper Cook Inlet in
2001, 2002, and 2003, harbor seals were observed 24 to 96 km (15 to 60
mi) south-southwest of Anchorage at the Chickaloon, Little Susitna,
Susitna, Ivan, McArthur, and Beluga Rivers (Rugh et al., 2005). During
the 2D test program in March 2011, two harbor seals were observed by
vessel-based PSOs. On March 25, 2011, one harbor seal was observed
approximately 400 m (0.2 mi) from the M/V Miss Diane. At the time of
the observation, the vessel was operating the positioning pinger, and
PSOs instructed the operator to implement a shut-down. The pinger was
shut down for 30 minutes while PSOs monitored the area and re-started
the device when the animal was not sighted again during the 30 minute
site clearing protocol. No unusual behaviors were reported during the
time the animal was observed. The second harbor seal was observed on
March 26, 2011, by vessel-based PSO onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher
approximately 4,260 m (2.6 mi) from the source vessel, which was
operating the 10 in\3\ air gun at the time. Many harbor seals were
observed during the 3D seismic survey conducted under the April 2012
IHA, especially when survey operations were conducted close to shore.
NMFS and Apache do not anticipate encountering large haulouts of seals
(the closest haulout site to the action area is located on Kalgin
Island, which is approximately 22 km [14 mi] south of the McArthur
River), but we do expect to see curious individual harbor seals;
especially during large fish runs in the various rivers draining into
Cook Inlet.
2. Steller Sea Lion
Two separate stocks of Steller sea lions are recognized within U.S.
waters: an eastern U.S. stock, which includes animals east of Cape
Suckling, Alaska; and a western U.S. stock, which includes animals west
of Cape Suckling (NMFS, 2008). Individuals in Cook Inlet are considered
part of the western U.S. stock, which is listed as endangered under the
ESA. Steller sea lions primarily occur in lower, rather than upper Cook
Inlet and are rarely sighted north of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula.
Haul-outs and rookeries are located near Cook Inlet at Gore Point,
Elizabeth Island, Perl Island, and Chugach Island (NMFS, 2008). No
Steller seal lion haul-outs or rookeries are located in the vicinity of
the proposed seismic survey. Furthermore, no sightings of Steller sea
lions were reported by Apache during the 2D test program in March 2011.
During the 3D seismic survey, one Steller sea lion was observed from
the M/V Dreamcatcher on August 18, 2012, during a period when the air
guns were not active. Although Apache has requested takes of Steller
sea lions, Steller sea lions would be rare in the action area during
seismic survey operations.
Apache's application contains information on the status,
distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the
species under NMFS jurisdiction mentioned in this document. Please
refer to the application for that information (see ADDRESSES).
Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment
Reports (SAR). The Alaska 2012 SAR is available on the Internet at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ak2012.pdf.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g.,
seismic airgun operations, vessel movement) have been observed to or
are thought to impact marine mammals. This section may include a
discussion of known effects that do not rise to the level of an MMPA
take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of
studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting
barely measurable avoidance). The discussion may also include reactions
that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do
not consider to rise to the level of a take. This section is intended
as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the
specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the
mitigation that will be implemented or how either of those will shape
the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The ``Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this document will
include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The ``Negligible Impact
Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how this specific
activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of
this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section,
the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, and the ``Anticipated Effects on
Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw conclusions regarding the
likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal
populations or stocks.
Operating active acoustic sources, such as air gun arrays, has the
potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority of
anticipated impacts would be from the use of acoustic sources.
Acoustic Impacts
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data,
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
Low-frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and
22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs
indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);
[[Page 80391]]
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises,
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to
occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest
sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, five marine mammal
species (three cetacean and two pinniped species) are likely to occur
in the proposed seismic survey area. Of the three cetacean species
likely to occur in Apache's proposed project area, two are classified
as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and killer whales), and one is
classified as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise)
(Southall et al., 2007). A species functional hearing group is a
consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on
marine mammals.
1. Potential Effects of Air Gun Sounds on Marine Mammals
The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more
of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral
disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-
auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in previous
NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly
variable, often depending on species and contextual factors (based on
Richardson et al., 1995).
Tolerance: Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from air
guns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many
kilometers. Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at
distances more than a few kilometers from operating survey vessels
often show no apparent response. That is often true even in cases when
the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on
measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal
group. In general, pinnipeds and small odontocetes (toothed whales)
seem to be more tolerant of exposure to air gun pulses than baleen
whales. Although various toothed whales, and (less frequently)
pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under
some conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no
overt reactions. Weir (2008) observed marine mammal responses to
seismic pulses from a 24 airgun array firing a total volume of either
5,085 in\3\ or 3,147 in\3\ in Angolan waters between August 2004 and
May 2005. Weir recorded a total of 207 sightings of humpback whales (n
= 66), sperm whales (n = 124), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17)
and reported that there were no significant differences in encounter
rates (sightings/hr) for humpback and sperm whales according to the
airgun array's operational status (i.e., active versus silent).
Behavioral Disturbance: Marine mammals may behaviorally react to
sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions
are often shown as: changing durations of surfacing and dives, number
of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping);
avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or
rookeries).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification have the potential to be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Examples of
significant behavioral modifications include:
Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those
thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic
environment; and
Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al. 2007).
Few systematic data are available describing reactions of toothed
whales to noise pulses. However, systematic work on sperm whales is
underway (Tyack et al., 2003), and there is an increasing amount of
information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys
based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al., 2004;
Moulton and Miller, 2005).
Seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see
dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays,
but, in general, there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to
show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun
systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic
vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel
even when large arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, there have
been indications that small toothed whales sometimes move away or
maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel when a large array
of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c;
Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003). The beluga may be a species
that (at least in certain geographic areas) shows long-distance
avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic operations
in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of
beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic
vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga
sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting
that some belugas might have been avoiding the seismic operations at
distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) (Miller et al., 2005).
Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of more relevance in this project)
beluga whales exhibit changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed
sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys
(Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). However, the animals tolerated high
received levels of sound (pk-pk level >200 dB re 1 [mu]Pa) before
exhibiting aversive behaviors.
Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United
Kingdom from 1997-2000 have provided data on the occurrence and
behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone,
2003; Gordon et al., 2004). Killer whales were found to be
significantly farther from large airgun arrays during periods of
shooting compared with periods of no shooting. The displacement of the
median distance from the array was approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) or
more. Killer whales also appear to be more tolerant of seismic shooting
in deeper water.
Reactions of toothed whales to large arrays of airguns are variable
and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius
than has been observed for mysticetes. However, based
[[Page 80392]]
on the limited existing evidence, belugas should not be grouped with
delphinids in the ``less responsive'' category.
Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the
airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels
has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds and
only slight (if any) changes in behavior. Monitoring work in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 provided considerable information
regarding the behavior of Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic pulses
(Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects
usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 airguns with total volumes of 560 to
1,500 in\3\. The combined results suggest that some seals avoid the
immediate area around seismic vessels. In most survey years, ringed
seal sightings tended to be farther away from the seismic vessel when
the airguns were operating than when they were not (Moulton and Lawson,
2002). However, these avoidance movements were relatively small, on the
order of 100 m (328 ft) to a few hundreds of meters, and many seals
remained within 100-200 m (328-656 ft) of the trackline as the
operating airgun array passed by. Seal sighting rates at the water
surface were lower during airgun array operations than during no-airgun
periods in each survey year except 1997. Similarly, seals are often
very tolerant of pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices (Mate and
Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995a).
However, initial telemetry work suggests that avoidance and other
behavioral reactions by two other species of seals to small airgun
sources may at times be stronger than evident to date from visual
studies of pinniped reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., 1998). Even
if reactions of the species occurring in the present study area are as
strong as those evident in the telemetry study, reactions are expected
to be confined to relatively small distances and durations, with no
long-term effects on pinniped individuals or populations.
Masking: Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other
sounds, often at similar frequencies. Marine mammals use acoustic
signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but
include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging,
reproduction, avoiding predators, and learning about their environment
(Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). Masking, or auditory
interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment are
louder than, and of a similar frequency as, auditory signals an animal
is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals that
are trying to receive acoustic information about their environment,
including sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey,
and sounds that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking
these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals,
groups of animals, or entire populations.
Masking occurs when anthropogenic sounds and signals (that the
animal utilizes) overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the
airgun sound generated from the proposed seismic surveys, sound will
consist of low frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short
durations (less than one second). Lower frequency man-made sounds are
more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other
potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There
is little concern regarding masking near the sound source due to the
brief duration of these pulses and relatively longer silence between
air gun shots (approximately 12 seconds). However, at long distances
(over tens of kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and
reverberation, the durations of airgun pulses can be ``stretched'' to
seconds with long decays (Madsen et al. 2006), although the intensity
of the sound is greatly reduced.
This could affect communication signals used by low frequency
mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and cause
increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009);
however, no baleen whales are expected to occur within the proposed
action area. Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for
masking by adjusting their acoustic behavior by shifting call
frequencies, and/or increasing call volume and vocalization rates. For
example, blue whales are found to increase call rates when exposed to
seismic survey noise in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark
2010). The North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) exposed to
high shipping noise increase call frequency (Parks et al. 2007), while
some humpback whales respond to low-frequency active sonar playbacks by
increasing song length (Miller el al. 2000). Additionally, beluga
whales have been known to change their vocalizations in the presence of
high background noise possibly to avoid masking calls (Au et al., 1985;
Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). Although some degree of
masking is inevitable when high levels of manmade broadband sounds are
introduced into the sea, marine mammals have evolved systems and
behavior that function to reduce the impacts of masking. Structured
signals, such as the echolocation click sequences of small toothed
whales, may be readily detected even in the presence of strong
background noise because their frequency content and temporal features
usually differ strongly from those of the background noise (Au and
Moore, 1988, 1990). The components of background noise that are similar
in frequency to the sound signal in question primarily determine the
degree of masking of that signal.
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak
signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in
the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in
marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the
same direction. The sound localization abilities of marine mammals
suggest that, if signal and noise come from different directions,
masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies
might suggest (Richardson et al., 1995). The dominant background noise
may be highly directional if it comes from a particular anthropogenic
source such as a ship or industrial site. Directional hearing may
significantly reduce the masking effects of these sounds by improving
the effective signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of higher frequency
hearing by the bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and killer whale,
empirical evidence confirms that masking depends strongly on the
relative directions of arrival of sound signals and the masking noise
(Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; Bain et al., 1993; Bain and
Dahlheim, 1994). Toothed whales, and probably other marine mammals as
well, have additional capabilities besides directional hearing that can
facilitate detection of sounds in the presence of background noise.
There is evidence that some toothed whales can shift the dominant
frequencies of their echolocation signals from a frequency range with a
lot of ambient noise toward frequencies with less noise (Au et al.,
1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko
and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A few marine mammal species are
known to increase the source levels or alter the frequency of their
calls in the presence of elevated sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au,
1993; Lesage et al., 1993, 1999; Terhune, 1999; Foote et al., 2004;
[[Page 80393]]
Parks et al., 2007, 2009; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009).
These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain
mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed
whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding
mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine
mammals. For example, Zaitseva et al. (1980) found that, for the
bottlenose dolphin, the angular separation between a sound source and a
masking noise source had little effect on the degree of masking when
the sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast to the pronounced effect at
higher frequencies. Directional hearing has been demonstrated at
frequencies as low as 0.5-2 kHz in several marine mammals, including
killer whales (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability may be useful in
reducing masking at these frequencies. In summary, high levels of sound
generated by anthropogenic activities may act to mask the detection of
weaker biologically important sounds by some marine mammals. This
masking may be more prominent for lower frequencies. For higher
frequencies, such as that used in echolocation by toothed whales,
several mechanisms are available that may allow them to reduce the
effects of such masking.
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to
days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of
hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can
be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity
might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is
permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a
specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role
in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear
that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment
within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear,
displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and
post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output
(Southall et al., 2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal
pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the
amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As
amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, so, generally, does
the amount of TS, along with the recovery time. For intermittent
sounds, less TS could occur than compared to a continuous exposure with
the same energy (some recovery could occur between intermittent
exposures depending on the duty cycle between sounds) (Kryter et al.,
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one short but loud (higher SPL) sound
exposure may induce the same impairment as one longer but softer sound,
which in turn may cause more impairment than a series of several
intermittent softer sounds with the same total energy (Ward, 1997).
Additionally, though TTS is temporary, prolonged exposure to sounds
strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels
well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial
mammals (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of the seismic survey,
animals are not expected to be exposed to levels high enough or
durations long enough to result in PTS.
PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007).
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause
PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the
elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner
ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear
fluids (Southall et al., 2007).
Although the published body of scientific literature contains
numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing
impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound, only a few
studies provide empirical information on the levels at which noise-
induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in nonhuman animals. For
marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose
dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, 2010a, 2010b;
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a,
2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et
al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data
are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal,
and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al.,
2012b).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note,
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall
et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during
the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid
the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other
marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but
their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as
those of cetaceans, and occasionally they seem to be attracted to
operating seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010).
Non-auditory Physical Effects: Non-auditory physical effects might
occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound.
Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that
theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types
of organ or tissue damage. Some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked
whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when
exposed to strong pulsed sounds.
[[Page 80394]]
Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous
system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception
triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually
threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to
trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; Seyle,
1950). Once an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it
mounts a biological response or defense that consists of a combination
of the four general biological defense responses: Behavioral responses;
autonomic nervous system responses; neuroendocrine responses; or immune
responses.
In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and most
economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance
of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a
stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the
sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical
``fight or flight'' response, which includes the cardiovascular system,
the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal
medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with
``stress.'' These responses have a relatively short duration and may or
may not have significant long-term effects on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its
neuroendocrine or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has
received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal
system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-
pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress
responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress--including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by
pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of
pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg,
1987; Rivier, 1995), altered metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), reduced
immune competence (Blecha, 2000), and behavioral disturbance. Increases
in the circulation of glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, corticosterone,
and aldosterone in marine mammals; see Romano et al., 2004) have been
equated with stress for many years.
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost
of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen
stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a
risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress
response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic
functions, which impair those functions that experience the diversion.
For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from
growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth.
When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an
animal's reproductive success and fitness will suffer. In these cases,
the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state
which is called ``distress'' (sensu Seyle, 1950) or ``allostatic
loading'' (sensu McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state
will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient
to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-
term (days or weeks) stress response exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented
fairly well through controlled experiment; because this physiology
exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising
that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both
laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton et al.,
1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004;
Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer,
2000). Although no information has been collected on the physiological
responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound exposure, studies of
other marine animals and terrestrial animals would lead us to expect
some marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and,
perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as
``distress'' upon exposure to anthropogenic sounds.
For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between
acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of
stress responses in humans (e.g., elevated respiration and increased
heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance
when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance.
Trimper et al. (1998) reported on the physiological stress responses of
osprey to low-level aircraft noise while Krausman et al. (2004)
reported on the auditory and physiology stress responses of endangered
Sonoran pronghorn to military overflights. Smith et al. (2004a, 2004b)
identified noise-induced physiological transient stress responses in
hearing-specialist fish (i.e., goldfish) that accompanied short- and
long-term hearing losses. Welch and Welch (1970) reported physiological
and behavioral stress responses that accompanied damage to the inner
ears of fish and several mammals.
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather
information about their environment and communicate with conspecifics.
Although empirical information on the relationship between sensory
impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains
limited, we assume that reducing a marine mammal's ability to gather
information about its environment and communicate with other members of
its species would induce stress, based on data that terrestrial animals
exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003) and
because marine mammals use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism.
Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger
onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress
responses. More importantly, marine mammals might experience stress
responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger
onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover
from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also assumes that stress
responses could persist beyond the time interval required for animals
to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-
pathological states that would be as significant as behavioral
responses to TTS. However, as stated previously in this document, the
source levels of the drillships are not loud enough to induce PTS or
likely even TTS.
Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noise-induced bubble
formations (Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in the case of exposure
to an impulsive broadband source like an airgun array. If seismic
surveys disrupt diving patterns of deep-diving species, this might
result in bubble formation and a form of the bends, as speculated to
occur in beaked whales exposed to sonar. However, there is no specific
evidence of this upon exposure to airgun pulses. Additionally, no
beaked whale species occur in the proposed seismic survey area.
In general, very little is known about the potential for strong,
anthropogenic
[[Page 80395]]
underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine
mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be
limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a
prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a
specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be
expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative
predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be
affected in those ways. There is no definitive evidence that any of
these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large
arrays of airguns. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral
avoidance of seismic vessels, including belugas and some pinnipeds, are
especially unlikely to incur non-auditory impairment or other physical
effects. Therefore, it is unlikely that such effects would occur during
Apache's proposed surveys given the brief duration of exposure and the
planned monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this
document.
Stranding and Mortality: Marine mammals close to underwater
detonations of high explosive can be killed or severely injured, and
the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al.
1993; Ketten 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and their peak
amplitudes have slower rise times. To date, there is no evidence that
serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can occur from
exposure to air gun pulses, even in the case of large air gun arrays.
However, in numerous past IHA notices for seismic surveys,
commenters have referenced two stranding events allegedly associated
with seismic activities, one off Baja California and a second off
Brazil. NMFS has addressed this concern several times, including in the
Federal Register notice announcing the IHA for Apache's first seismic
survey in 2012, and, without new information, does not believe that
this issue warrants further discussion. For information relevant to
strandings of marine mammals, readers are encouraged to review NMFS'
response to comments on this matter found in 69 FR 74905 (December 14,
2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 (August 24, 2006), 71
FR 49418 (August 23, 2006), and 77 FR 27720 (May 11, 2012).
It should be noted that strandings related to sound exposure have
not been recorded for marine mammal species in Cook Inlet. Beluga whale
strandings in Cook Inlet are not uncommon; however, these events often
coincide with extreme tidal fluctuations (``spring tides'') or killer
whale sightings (Shelden et al., 2003). For example, in August 2012, a
group of Cook Inlet beluga whales stranded in the mud flats of
Turnagain Arm during low tide and were able to swim free with the flood
tide. No strandings or marine mammals in distress were observed during
the 2D test survey conducted by Apache in March 2011, and none were
reported by Cook Inlet inhabitants. Furthermore, no strandings were
reported during seismic survey operations conducted under the April
2012 IHA. As a result, NMFS does not expect any marine mammals will
incur serious injury or mortality in Cook Inlet or strand as a result
of the proposed seismic survey.
2. Potential Effects From Pingers on Marine Mammals
Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed
for Apache's 2014 seismic survey in Cook Inlet. The specifications for
the pingers (source levels and frequency ranges) were provided earlier
in this document. In general, the potential effects of this equipment
on marine mammals are similar to those from the airguns, except the
magnitude of the impacts is expected to be much less due to the lower
intensity of the source.
3. Potential Effects From Aircraft Noise on Marine Mammals
Apache plans to utilize aircraft to conduct aerial surveys near
river mouths in order to identify locations or congregations of beluga
whales and other marine mammals prior to the commencement of
operations. The aircraft will not be used every day but will be used
for surveys near river mouths. Aerial surveys will fly at an altitude
of 305 m (1,000 ft) when practicable and weather conditions permit. In
the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft will try to maintain a
radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft
will avoid approaching marine mammals from head-on, flying over or
passing the shadow of the aircraft over the marine mammals.
Studies on the reactions of cetaceans to aircraft show little
negative response (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, reactions
range from sudden dives and turns and are typically found to decrease
if the animals are engaged in feeding or social behavior. Whales with
calves or in confined waters may show more of a response. Generally
there has been little or no evidence of marine mammals responding to
aircraft overflights when altitudes are at or above 305 m (1,000 ft),
based on three decades of flying experience in the Arctic (NMFS,
unpublished data). Based on long-term studies that have been conducted
on beluga whales in Cook Inlet since 1993, NMFS expect that there will
be no effects of this activity on beluga whales or other cetaceans. No
change in beluga swim directions or other noticeable reactions have
been observed during the Cook Inlet aerial surveys flown from 183 to
244 m (600 to 800 ft) (e.g., Rugh et al., 2000). By applying the
operational requirements discussed above, sound levels underwater are
not expected to rise to the level of a take.
The majority of observations of pinnipeds reacting to aircraft
noise are associated with animals hauled out on land or ice. There are
few data describing the reactions of pinnipeds in water to aircraft
(Richardson et al., 1995). In the presence of aircraft, pinnipeds
hauled out for pupping or molting generally became alert and then
rushed or slipped (when on ice) into the water. Stampedes often result
from this response and may increase pup mortality due to crushing or an
increase rate of pup abandonment. The greatest reactions from hauled
out pinnipeds were observed when low flying aircrafts passed directly
above the animal(s) (Richardson et al., 1995). Although noise
associated with aircraft activity could cause hauled out pinnipeds to
rush into the water, there are no known haul out sites in the vicinity
of the survey site. Therefore, the operation of aircraft during the
seismic survey is not expected to have effects that could cause
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or
their populations. To minimize the noise generated by aircraft, Apache
will follow NMFS' Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations
found on the Internet at: http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm.
Vessel Impacts
Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will
temporarily increase in the action area during Apache's seismic survey
as a result of the operation of nine vessels. To minimize the effects
of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, Apache will
follow NMFS' Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations and will
alter heading or speed if a marine mammal gets too close to a vessel.
In addition, vessels will be operating at slow speed (2-4 knots) when
conducting surveys and in a purposeful manner to and from work sites in
as direct a route as possible. Marine mammal monitoring observers
[[Page 80396]]
and passive acoustic devices will alert vessel captains as animals are
detected to ensure safe and effective measures are applied to avoid
coming into direct contact with marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS neither
anticipates nor authorizes takes of marine mammals from ship strikes.
Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor
porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may
react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or
were previously harassed by vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Beluga
whale response to vessel noise varies greatly from tolerance to extreme
sensitivity depending on the activity of the whale and previous
experience with vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Reactions to vessels
depends on whale activities and experience, habitat, boat type, and
boat behavior (Richardson et al., 1995) and may include behavioral
responses, such as altered headings or avoidance (Blane and Jaakson,
1994; Erbe and Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; changes in vocalizations
(Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in dive,
surfacing, and respiration patterns.
There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel
activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson et al.,
1995). Generally, sea lions in water show tolerance to close and
frequently approaching vessels and sometimes show interest in fishing
vessels. They are less tolerant when hauled out on land; however, they
rarely react unless the vessel approaches within 100-200 m (330-660 ft;
reviewed in Richardson et al., 1995).
The addition of nine vessels and noise due to vessel operations
associated with the seismic survey would not be outside the present
experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may
increase locally. Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and
the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the
other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity and
noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their
populations.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other
marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by
airguns and other active acoustic sources. However, other potential
impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also
possible. This section describes the potential impacts to marine mammal
habitat from the specified activity. Because the marine mammals in the
area feed on fish and/or invertebrates there is also information on the
species typically preyed upon by the marine mammals in the area.
Common Marine Mammal Prey in the Project Area
Fish are the primary prey species for marine mammals in upper Cook
Inlet. Beluga whales feed on a variety of fish, shrimp, squid, and
octopus (Burns and Seaman, 1986). Common prey species in Knik Arm
include salmon, eulachon and cod. Harbor seals feed on fish such as
pollock, cod, capelin, eulachon, Pacific herring, and salmon, as well
as a variety of benthic species, including crabs, shrimp, and
cephalopods. Harbor seals are also opportunistic feeders with their
diet varying with season and location. The preferred diet of the harbor
seal in the Gulf of Alaska consists of pollock, octopus, capelin,
eulachon, and Pacific herring (Calkins, 1989). Other prey species
include cod, flat fishes, shrimp, salmon, and squid (Hoover, 1988).
Harbor porpoises feed primarily on Pacific herring, cod, whiting
(hake), pollock, squid, and octopus (Leatherwood et al., 1982). In the
upper Cook Inlet area, harbor porpoise feed on squid and a variety of
small schooling fish, which would likely include Pacific herring and
eulachon (Bowen and Siniff, 1999; NMFS, unpublished data). Killer
whales feed on either fish or other marine mammals depending on genetic
type (resident versus transient respectively). Killer whales in Knik
Arm are typically the transient type (Shelden et al., 2003) and feed on
beluga whales and other marine mammals, such as harbor seal and harbor
porpoise. The Steller sea lion diet consists of a variety of fishes
(capelin, cod, herring, mackerel, pollock, rockfish, salmon, sand
lance, etc.), bivalves, squid, octopus, and gastropods.
Potential Impacts on Prey Species
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background sound level.
Fishes produce sounds that are associated with behaviors that
include territoriality, mate search, courtship, and aggression. It has
also been speculated that sound production may provide the means for
long distance communication and communication under poor underwater
visibility conditions (Zelick et al., 1999), although the fact that
fish communicate at low-frequency sound levels where the masking
effects of ambient noise are naturally highest suggests that very long
distance communication would rarely be possible. Fishes have evolved a
diversity of sound generating organs and acoustic signals of various
temporal and spectral contents. Fish sounds vary in structure,
depending on the mechanism used to produce them (Hawkins, 1993).
Generally, fish sounds are predominantly composed of low frequencies
(less than 3 kHz).
Since objects in the water scatter sound, fish are able to detect
these objects through monitoring the ambient noise. Therefore, fish are
probably able to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, and physical
features by listening to environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). There
are two sensory systems that enable fish to monitor the vibration-based
information of their surroundings. The two sensory systems, the inner
ear and the lateral line, constitute the acoustico-lateralis system.
Although the hearing sensitivities of very few fish species have
been studied to date, it is becoming obvious that the intra- and inter-
specific variability is considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell et al.
(2004) compiled and published available fish audiogram information. A
noninvasive electrophysiological recording method known as auditory
brainstem response is now commonly used in the production of fish
audiograms (Yan, 2004). Popper and Carlson (1998) and the Navy (2001)
found that fish generally perceive underwater sounds in the frequency
range of 50-2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz. Even though
some fish are able to detect sounds in the ultrasonic frequency range,
the thresholds at these higher frequencies tend to be considerably
higher than those at the lower end of the auditory frequency range.
Fish are sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds due to
swimbladder resonance. As the pressure wave passes through a fish, the
swimbladder is rapidly squeezed as the high pressure wave, and then the
under pressure component of the wave, passes through the fish. The
swimbladder may repeatedly expand and contract at the high sound
pressure levels, creating
[[Page 80397]]
pressure on the internal organs surrounding the swimbladder.
Literature relating to the impacts of sound on marine fish species
can be divided into the following categories: (1) pathological effects;
(2) physiological effects; and (3) behavioral effects. Pathological
effects include lethal and sub-lethal physical damage to fish;
physiological effects include primary and secondary stress responses;
and behavioral effects include changes in exhibited behaviors of fish.
Behavioral changes might be a direct reaction to a detected sound or a
result of the anthropogenic sound masking natural sounds that the fish
normally detect and to which they respond. The three types of effects
are often interrelated in complex ways. For example, some physiological
and behavioral effects could potentially lead to the ultimate
pathological effect of mortality. Hastings and Popper (2005) reviewed
what is known about the effects of sound on fishes and identified
studies needed to address areas of uncertainty relative to measurement
of sound and the responses of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/2004) also
published a paper that reviews the effects of anthropogenic sound on
the behavior and physiology of fishes.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound rather than a continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a
quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity
rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level.
Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen
et al., 1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) have shown that fish react
when the sound from the engines and propeller exceeds a certain level.
Avoidance reactions have been observed in fish such as cod and herring
when vessels approached close enough that received sound levels are 110
dB to 130 dB (Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and Godo, 1990; Ona and
Toresen, 1988). However, other researchers have found that fish such as
polar cod, herring, and capeline are often attracted to vessels
(apparently by the noise) and swim toward the vessel (Rostad et al.,
2006). Typical sound source levels of vessel noise in the audible range
for fish are 150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 1995).
Carlson (1994), in a review of 40 years of studies concerning the
use of underwater sound to deter salmonids from hazardous areas at
hydroelectric dams and other facilities, concluded that salmonids were
able to respond to low-frequency sound and to react to sound sources
within a few feet of the source. He speculated that the reason that
underwater sound had no effect on salmonids at distances greater than a
few feet is because they react to water particle motion/acceleration,
not sound pressures. Detectable particle motion is produced within very
short distances of a sound source, although sound pressure waves travel
farther.
Potential Impacts to the Benthic Environment
Apache's seismic survey requires the deployment of a submersible
recording system in the inter-tidal and marine zones. An autonomous
``nodal'' (i.e., no cables) system would be placed on the seafloor by
specific vessels in lines parallel to each other with a node line
spacing of 402 m (0.25 mi). Each nodal ``patch'' would have six to
eight node lines parallel to each other. The lines generally run
perpendicular to the shoreline. An entire patch would be placed on the
seafloor prior to airgun activity. As the patches are surveyed, the
node lines would be moved either side to side or inline to the next
location. Placement and retrieval of the nodes may cause temporary and
localized increases in turbidity on the seafloor. The substrate of Cook
Inlet consists of glacial silt, clay, cobbles, pebbles, and sand
(Sharma and Burrell, 1970). Sediments like sand and cobble dissipate
quickly when suspended, but finer materials like clay and silt can
create thicker plumes that may harm fish; however, the turbidity
created by placing and removing nodes on the seafloor would settle to
background levels within minutes after the cessation of activity.
In addition, seismic noise will radiate throughout the water column
from airguns and pingers until it dissipates to background levels. No
studies have demonstrated that seismic noise affects the life stages,
condition, or amount of food resources (fish, invertebrates, eggs) used
by marine mammals, except when exposed to sound levels within a few
meters of the seismic source or in few very isolated cases. Where fish
or invertebrates did respond to seismic noise, the effects were
temporary and of short duration. Consequently, disturbance to fish
species due to the activities associated with the seismic survey (i.e,
placement and retrieval of nodes and noise from sound sources) would be
short term and fish would be expected to return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once seismic survey activities cease.
As noted earlier in this document, upper Cook Inlet is an important
feeding and calving area for the Cook Inlet beluga whale, and critical
habitat has been designated for this stock in the proposed seismic
survey area.
Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed activity is not
expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or
their populations.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
Later in this document in the ``Proposed Incidental Harassment
Authorization'' section, NMFS lays out the proposed conditions for
review, as they would appear in the final IHA (if issued).
Mitigation Measures Proposed by Apache
For the proposed mitigation measures, Apache listed the following
protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey in Cook Inlet.
1. Operation of Mitigation Air Gun at Night
Apache proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations.
Nighttime operations would only be initiated if a mitigation air gun
(typically the 10 in\3\) has been continuously operational from the
time that PSO monitoring has ceased for the day. The mitigation airgun
would operate on a longer duty cycle than the full airgun arrays,
firing every 60 seconds. Seismic activity would not ramp up from an
extended shut-down (i.e., when the airgun has been down with no
activity for at least 10 minutes) during nighttime operations and
survey activities would be suspended until the following day because
dedicated PSOs would not be on duty and any unseen animals may be
exposed to injurious levels of sound from the full array. At night, the
vessel captain and crew
[[Page 80398]]
would maintain lookout for marine mammals and would order the airgun(s)
to be shut down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the
established exclusion zones.
2. Exclusion and Disturbance Zones
Apache proposes to establish zones to avoid Level A harassment of
all marine mammals and will shut down or power down operations if
animals are seen approaching this zone (more detail next).
Additionally, Apache proposes to monitor the Level B harassment zone
and implement shut down measures if beluga whales are seen entering or
approaching the Level B harassment zone.
In the previous Apache IHAs, NMFS required a seasonal exclusion
zone for airgun activities within 16 km (10 mi) of the mean high
waterline of the Susitna Delta (``Susitna Delta'' being defined as
shoreline between the mouth of the Beluga River to the mouth of the
Little Susitna River). Airgun activities within this exclusion zone are
prohibited from mid-April to mid-October. This exclusion was contingent
on (as stated in the February 14, 2013 Biological Opinion), `Once
results of the SSV study in the upper Cook Inlet are available, Apache
will contact NMFS AKR [Alaska Region] to determine if a new minimum
setback distance is required for this area during this time' (NMFS
2013a). Apache proposes that the results of the SSV (see Appendices B,
C, and D in Apache's application) in upper Cook Inlet indicate a
distance of 9.5 km (5.9 mi) is a more appropriate setback distance to
protect beluga whales. NMFS does not agree with this assertion, and our
recommendation for this seasonal exclusion zone can be found in the
next sub-heading of this section.
3. Power Down and Shutdown Procedures
A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating
energy sources from all firing to some smaller number. A shutdown is
the immediate cessation of firing of all energy sources. The arrays
will be immediately powered down whenever a marine mammal is sighted
approaching close to or within the applicable exclusion zone of the
full arrays but is outside the applicable exclusion zone of the single
source. If a marine mammal is sighted within the applicable exclusion
zone of the single energy source, the entire array will be shutdown
(i.e., no sources firing). Following a power down or a shutdown, airgun
activity will not resume until the marine mammal has clearly left the
applicable Level A harassment exclusion zone. The animal will be
considered to have cleared the zone if it: (1) Is visually observed to
have left the zone; (2) has not been seen within the zone for 15
minutes in the case of pinnipeds and small odontocetes; or (3) has not
been seen within the zone for 30 minutes in the case of large
odontocetes, including killer whales and belugas.
4. Ramp-Up Procedures
A ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound
levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total
volume of air guns firing until the full volume is achieved. The
purpose of a ramp-up (or ``soft start'') is to ``warn'' cetaceans and
pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for
them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or
impairment of their hearing abilities.
During the proposed seismic survey, the seismic operator will ramp
up the airgun array slowly. NMFS requires the rate of ramp-up to be no
more than 6 dB per 5-minute period. Ramp-up is used at the start of
airgun operations, after a power- or shut-down, and after any period of
greater than 10 minutes in duration without airgun operations (i.e.,
extended shutdown).
A full ramp-up after a shutdown will not begin until there has been
a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the safety zone by PSOs to
assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire exclusion zone
must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If the
entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp-up from a cold start
cannot begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the Level A
harassment exclusion zone during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp-up,
ramp-up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside
of the zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15-30 minutes:
15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g. harbor porpoises,
harbor seals, and Steller sea lions), or 30 minutes for large
odontocetes (e.g., killer whales and beluga whales).
5. Speed or Course Alteration
If a marine mammal is detected outside the Level A (injury)
harassment zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is
likely to enter that zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may,
when practical and safe, be changed that also minimizes the effect on
the seismic program. This can be used in coordination with a power down
procedure. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the
seismic and support vessels will be closely monitored to ensure that
the marine mammal does not approach within the applicable exclusion
radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the exclusion radius,
further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course
alterations, power down, or shut down of the airgun(s).
6. Shut-Downs for Aggregations of Whales and Beluga Cow-Calf Pairs
The following additional protective measures for beluga whale cow-
calf pairs and aggregations of whales are proposed. Specifically, a
160-dB vessel monitoring zone would be established and monitored in
Cook Inlet during all seismic surveys. Whenever an aggregation of
beluga whales or killer whales (five or more whales of any age/sex
class), or beluga whale cow-calf pairs are observed approaching the
160-dB zone around the survey operations, the survey activity would not
commence or would shut down, until they are no longer present within
the 160-dB zone of seismic surveying operations.
Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS
As noted earlier in this section of the document, Apache proposes
to implement a seasonal exclusion setback distance of 9.5 km (5.9 mi)
in the Susitna Delta area. However, NMFS' Biological Opinion states
that activities must remain at least 16 km (10 mi) from the mean high
waterline of the Susitna Delta. The purpose of this mitigation measure
is to protect the designated critical habitat in this area that is
important for beluga whale feeding and calving during the spring and
fall months. The range of the setback required by NMFS was designated
to create this important habitat area and also to create an effective
buffer where sound does not encroach on this habitat. Because this
measure is in the current Biological Opinion, unless it is changed,
NMFS cannot alter the distance as requested by Apache. NMFS proposes to
keep the setback at the current distance of 16 km (10 mi). This
seasonal exclusion is in effect from April 15-October 15. Activities
can occur within this area from October 16-April 14 in a given year.
Additionally, NMFS proposes that seismic survey operations,
involving the use of airguns and pingers, must cease if the total
authorized takes of any marine mammal species are met or exceeded.
[[Page 80399]]
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated Apache's proposed mitigation measures
and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their
habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of
the following factors in relation to one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received
levels of seismic airguns, or other activities expected to result in
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number
or number at biologically important time or location) to received
levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance
of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Apache submitted information regarding marine mammal monitoring to be
conducted during seismic operations as part of the IHA application.
That information can be found in Sections 12 and 14 of the application.
The monitoring measures may be modified or supplemented based on
comments or new information received from the public during the public
comment period.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or
more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both
within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of active seismic airguns that we
associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment,
TTS, or PTS;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond
to active seismic airguns or other stimuli expected to result in take
and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways
and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock
(specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival) through any of the following methods:
[cir] Behavioral observations in the presence of active seismic
operations compared to observations in the absence of active seismic
airguns (need to be able to accurately predict received level and
report bathymetric conditions, distance from source, and other
pertinent information);
[cir] Physiological measurements in the presence of active seismic
airgun operations compared to observations in the absence of seismic
airgun operations (need to be able to accurately predict received level
and report bathymetric conditions, distance from source, and other
pertinent information); and
[cir] Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas
with concentrated active seismic airgun operations versus times or
areas without active airgun operations.
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain
mitigation and monitoring measures.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
1. Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by
experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities.
PSOs would monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near
the survey vessel during all daylight periods during operation and
during most daylight periods when airgun operations are not occurring.
PSO duties would include watching for and identifying marine mammals,
recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey
operations, and documenting ``take by harassment'' as defined by NMFS.
A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard the survey
vessel to meet the following criteria: (1) 100 percent monitoring
coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight; (2)
maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and (3) maximum of 12
hours of watch time per day per PSO.
PSO teams would consist of experienced field biologists. An
experienced field crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the
survey vessel. Apache currently plans to have PSOs aboard three
vessels: The two source vessels (M/V Peregrine Falcon and M/V Arctic
Wolf) and one support vessel (M/V Dreamcatcher). Two PSOs would be on
the source vessels, and two PSOs would be on the support vessel to
observe and
[[Page 80400]]
implement the exclusion, power down, and shut down areas. When marine
mammals are about to enter or are sighted within designated harassment
and exclusion zones, airgun or pinger operations would be powered down
(when applicable) or shut down immediately. The vessel-based observers
would watch for marine mammals during all periods when sound sources
are in operation and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the start of
airgun or pinger operations after an extended shut down.
Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers would
be individuals with experience as observers during seismic surveys in
Alaska or other areas in recent years.
The observer(s) would watch for marine mammals from the best
available vantage point on the source and support vessels, typically
the flying bridge. The observer(s) would scan systematically with the
unaided eye and 7x50 reticle binoculars. Laser range finders would be
available to assist with estimating distance on the two source vessels.
Personnel on the bridge would assist the observer(s) in watching for
marine mammals.
All observations would be recorded in a standardized format. Data
would be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The
accuracy of the data would be verified by computerized validity data
checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checks of the
database. These procedures would allow for initial summaries of the
data to be prepared during and shortly after the completion of the
field program, and would facilitate transfer of the data to
statistical, geographical, or other programs for future processing and
achieving. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information
about the sighting would be recorded:
Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if
determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting,
heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from the PSO, apparent
reaction to activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling,
etc.), closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel (e.g.,
seismic airguns off, pingers on, etc.), sea state, ice cover,
visibility, and sun glare; and
The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the
PSO location.
The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water
temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun
glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation
watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change
in any of those variables.
2. Visual Shore-Based Monitoring
In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, Apache proposes to utilize a
shore-based station, when possible, to visually monitor for marine
mammals. The shore-based station would follow all safety procedures,
including bear safety. The location of the shore-based station would
need to be sufficiently high to observe marine mammals; the PSOs would
be equipped with pedestal mounted ``big eye'' (20x110) binoculars. The
shore-based PSOs would scan the area prior to, during, and after the
airgun operations and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs
via radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or
within the project area. This communication will allow the vessel-based
observers to go on a ``heightened'' state of alert regarding occurrence
of marine mammals in the area and aid in timely implementation of
mitigation measures.
3. Aerial-Based Monitoring
Apache proposes, safety and weather permitting, to conduct daily
aerial surveys when there are any seismic-related activities (including
but not limited to node laying/retrieval or airgun operations)
occurring north or east of a line from Tyonek across to the eastern
side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area, Cook
Inlet. Safety and weather permitting, surveys are to be flown even if
the airguns are not being fired.
Apache also proposes, safety and weather permitting, and when
operating north or east of a line from Tyonek to the eastern side of
Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area, Cook Inlet, to
fly daily aerial surveys around the most important beluga whale
foraging and reproductive areas of the upper Inlet. Flights are to be
conducted with a plane with adequate viewing capabilities, i.e., view
not obstructed by wing or other part of the plane. Flight paths should
encompass areas from Anchorage, along the coastline of the Susitna
Delta to Tyonek, across the inlet to Point Possession, around the
coastline of Chickaloon Bay to Burnt Island, and across to Anchorage
(or in reverse order). The surveys will continue daily when Apache has
any activities north or east of a line from Tyonek across to the
eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area
(see Figure 19 in Apache's application). These aerial surveys will be
conducted in order to notify the vessel-based PSOs of marine mammals
that may be on a path that could intersect with the seismic survey, and
so that Apache can determine if operations should be relocated or
temporarily suspended.
Apache also proposes to, safety and weather permitting, conduct
aerial surveys when operating near river mouths to identify large
congregations of beluga whales and harbor seal haul outs. Again, these
aerial surveys will be conducted in order to notify the vessel-based
PSOs of the presence of marine mammals that may be on a path that could
intersect with the seismic survey, and so that Apache can determine if
operations should be relocated or temporarily supsended. Weather and
scheduling permitting, aerial surveys would fly at an altitude of 305 m
(1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft would
attempt to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the
marine mammal(s). Aircraft would avoid approaching marine mammals from
head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft over the
marine mammal(s). By following these operational requirements, sound
levels underwater are not expected to meet or exceed NMFS harassment
thresholds (Richardson et al., 1995; Blackwell et al., 2002).
Based on data collected from Apache during its survey operations
conducted under the April 2012 IHA, NMFS believes that the foregoing
monitoring measures will allow Apache to identify animals nearing or
entering the Level B harassment zone with a reasonably high degree of
accuracy.
Reporting Measures
Immediate reports will be submitted to NMFS if 25 belugas are
detected in the Level B harassment zone to evaluate and make necessary
adjustments to monitoring and mitigation. If the number of detected
takes for any marine mammal species is met or exceeded, Apache will
immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active sound
sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
1. Weekly Reports
Weekly reports will be submitted to NMFS no later than the close of
business (Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water
seismic activities take place. The field reports will summarize species
detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting,
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine
mammals taken.
[[Page 80401]]
2. Monthly Reports
Monthly reports will be submitted to NMFS for all months during
which in-water seismic activities take place. The monthly report will
contain and summarize the following information:
Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea
conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and
associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal
sightings.
Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and
behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated seismic
activity (number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all
monitoring activities.
An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds
that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans
that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
A description of the implementation and effectiveness of
the: (i) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental
Take Statement (ITS); and (ii) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the
Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each
Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and
describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the
action on ESA-listed marine mammals.
3. 90-Day Technical Report
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of
the project. The report will summarize all activities and monitoring
results (i.e., vessel and shore-based visual monitoring and aerial
monitoring) conducted during in-water seismic surveys. The Technical
Report will include the following:
Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period,
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and
detectability of marine mammals).
Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare).
Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of
marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/
size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover.
Analyses of the effects of survey operations.
Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could
affect detectability), such as: (i) Initial sighting distances versus
survey activity state; (ii) closest point of approach versus survey
activity state; (iii) observed behaviors and types of movements versus
survey activity state; (iv) numbers of sightings/individuals seen
versus survey activity state; (v) distribution around the source
vessels versus survey activity state; and (vi) estimates of take by
Level B harassment based on presence in the 160 dB harassment zone.
4. Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement),
Apache would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Apache to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache would not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
Apache would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska
Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the same
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with Apache to determine whether modifications in the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Apache would report the incident
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or
by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours
of the discovery. Apache would provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
As noted earlier in this document, NMFS has issued two IHAs to
Apache for this same proposed activity. No seismic surveys were
conducted under the IHA issued in February 2013 (became effective March
1, 2013). Apache conducted seismic operations under the first IHA
issued in April 2012. Below is a summary of the results from the
monitoring conducted in accordance with the April 2012 IHA.
Marine mammal monitoring was conducted in central Cook Inlet
between May 6 and September 30, 2012, which resulted in a total of
6,912 hours of observations. Monitoring was conducted from the two
seismic survey vessels, a mitigation/monitoring vessel, four land
platforms, and an aerial platform (either a helicopter or small fixed
wing
[[Page 80402]]
aircraft). PSOs monitored from the seismic vessels, mitigation/
monitoring vessel, and land platforms during all daytime seismic
operations. Aerial overflights were conducted 1-2 times daily over the
survey area and surrounding coastline, including the major river
mouths, to monitor for larger concentrations of marine mammals in and
around the survey site. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) took place
from the mitigation/monitoring vessel during all nighttime seismic
survey operations and most daytime seismic survey operations. During
the entire 2012 survey season, Apache's PAM equipment yielded only six
confirmed marine mammal detections, once of which was a Cook Inlet
beluga whale.
Six identified species and three unidentified species of marine
mammals were observed from the vessel, land, and aerial platforms
between May 6 and September 30, 2012. The species observed included
Cook Inlet beluga whales, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea
lions, gray whales, and California sea lions. PSOs also observed
unidentified species, including a large cetacean, pinniped, and marine
mammal. The gray whale and California sea lion were not included in the
2012 IHA, so mitigation measures were implemented for these species to
prevent unauthorized takes. There were a total of 882 sightings and an
estimated 5,232 individuals (the number or individuals is typically
higher than the number of sightings because a single sighting may
consist of multiple individuals). Harbor seals were the most frequently
observed marine mammal at 563 sightings of approximately 3,471
individuals, followed by beluga whales with 151 sightings of
approximately 1,463 individuals, harbor porpoises with 137 sightings of
approximately 190 individuals, and gray whales with 9 sightings of 9
individuals. Steller sea lions were observed on three separate
occasions (4 individuals), and two California sea lions were observed
once. No killer whales were observed during seismic survey operations
conducted under the 2012 IHA.
A total of 88 exclusion zone clearing delays, 154 shutdowns, 7
power downs, 23 shutdowns following a power down, and one speed and
course alteration were implemented under the 2012 IHA. Exclusion zone
clearing delays, shutdowns, and shutdowns following a power down
occurred most frequently during harbor seal sightings (n=61, n=110,
n=14, respectively), followed by harbor porpoise sightings (n=18, n=28,
n=6, respectively), and then beluga whale sightings (n=5, n=6, n=3,
respectively). Power downs occurred most frequently with harbor seal
(n=3) and harbor porpoise (n=3) sightings. One speed and course
alteration occurred in response to a beluga whale sighting. A total of
17 Level B harassment takes were detected from May 6 to September 30,
2012, including harbor porpoise (n=4) and harbor seals (n=13). No other
marine mammal species were detected in the Level B harassment zone.
There were no detected Level A harassment takes of either cetaceans or
pinnipeds during the 2012 seismic survey operations.
Based on the information from the 2012 monitoring report, NMFS has
determined that Apache complied with the conditions of the 2012 IHA,
and we conclude that these results support our original findings that
the mitigation measures set forth in the 2012 Authorization effected
the least practicable impact on the species or stocks.
Although Apache did not conduct any seismic survey operations under
the 2013 IHA, they still conducted marine mammal monitoring surveys
between May and August 2013. During those aerial surveys, Apache
detected a total of three marine mammal species: beluga whale; harbor
porpoise; and harbor seal. A total of 718 individual belugas, three
harbor porpoises, and 919 harbor seals were sighted. Of the 718
observed belugas, 61 were calves. All of the calf sightings occurred in
the Susitna Delta area, with the exception of a couple south of the
Beluga River and a couple in Turnagain Arm. More than 60 percent of the
beluga calf sightings occurred in June (n=39).
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral
harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed marine survey
program. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are associated with
noise propagation from the sound sources (e.g., airguns and pingers)
used in the seismic survey; no take is expected to result from the
detonation of explosives onshore, as supported by the SSV study, from
vessel strikes because of the slow speed of the vessels (2-4 knots), or
from aircraft overflights, as surveys will be flown at a minimum
altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) and at 457 m (1,500 ft) when marine
mammals are detected.
Apache requests authorization to take five marine mammal species by
Level B harassment. These five marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet
beluga whale; killer whale; harbor porpoise; harbor seal; and Steller
sea lion.
For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the
seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) isopleth to
indicate the onset of Level B harassment. The current Level A (injury)
harassment threshold is 180 dB (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB (rms) for
pinnipeds. Section 7 of Apache's application contains a full
description of the methodology used by Apache to estimate takes by
harassment, including calculations for the 160 dB (rms) isopleths and
marine mammal densities in the areas of operation (see ADDRESSES),
which is also provided in the following sections. NMFS verified
Apache's methods and used Apache's take estimates in its analyses.
Basis for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''
As stated previously, it is current NMFS policy to estimate take by
Level B harassment for impulse sounds at a received level of 160 dB
(rms). As described earlier in this notice, impulsive sounds would be
generated by airgun arrays that would be used to obtain geological data
during the surveys. To estimate potential takes by Level B harassment
for this proposed IHA, as well as for mitigation radii to be
implemented by PSOs, ranges to the 160 dB (rms) isopleths were
estimated at three different water depths (5 m, 25 m, and 45 m) for
nearshore surveys and at 80 m for channel surveys. The distances to
this threshold for the nearshore survey locations are provided in Table
1 in this document and Table 2 in Apache's application and correspond
to the three transects modeled at each site in the onshore, nearshore,
and parallel to shore directions. To estimate take by Level B
harassment, Apache used the most conservative (largest) value from each
category presented in Table 1 in this document. The distances to the
thresholds for the channel survey locations are provided in Table 2 in
this document and Table 4 in Apache's application and correspond to the
broadside and endfire directions. The areas ensonified to the 160 dB
isopleth for the nearshore survey are provided in Table 3 in this
document and Table 3 in Apache's application. The area
[[Page 80403]]
ensonifed to the 160 dB isopleth for the channel survey is 517 km\2\.
Table 1--Distances to Level B and Level A Harassment Sound Level Thresholds for the Nearshore Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance in
Water depth at Distance in Distance in the parallel
Sound level threshold (dB re 1 [mu]Pa) source the onshore the offshore to shore
location (m) direction (km) direction (km) direction (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160............................................. 5 1.03 4.73 2.22
25 5.69 7.77 9.5
45 6.75 5.95 9.15
5 0.46 0.6 0.54
180............................................. 25 1.06 1.07 1.42
45 0.7 0.83 0.89
5 0.28 0.33 0.33
190............................................. 25 0.35 0.36 0.44
45 0.1 0.1 0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Distances to Level B and Level A Harassment Sound Level Thresholds for the Channel Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance in Distance in
Water depth at the broadside the endfire
Sound level threshold (dB re 1 [mu]Pa) source direction direction
location (m) (km) (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160............................................................. 80 5.14 7.33
180............................................................. 80 0.91 0.98
190............................................................. 80 0.15 0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Areas Ensonified to 160 dB (rms) for Nearshore Surveys in a 24
Hour Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area
Depth range ensonified to
Nearshore survey depth classification (m) 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow................................. 5-21 462
Mid-depth............................... 21-38 629
Deep.................................... 38-54 623
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compared to the airguns, the relevant isopleths for the positioning
pinger is quite small. The distances to the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms)
isopleths are 1 m, 3 m, and 25 m (3.3, 10, and 82 ft), respectively.
Estimates of Marine Mammal Density
Apache used one method to estimate densities for Cook Inlet beluga
whales and another method for the other marine mammals in the area
expected to be taken by harassment. Both methods are described in
Apache's application and in this document.
1. Beluga Whale Density Estimates
In consultation with staff from NMFS' National Marine Mammal
Laboratory (NMML) during development of the second IHA in early 2013,
Apache used a habitat-based model developed by Goetz et al. (2012a).
Information from that model has once again been used to estimate
densities of beluga whales in Cook Inlet. A summary of the model is
provided here, and additional detail can be found in Goetz et al.
(2012a). To develop NMML's estimated densities of belugas, Goetz et al.
(2012a) developed a model based on aerial survey data, depth soundings,
coastal substrate type, environmental sensitivity index, anthropogenic
disturbance, and anadromous fish streams to predict beluga densities
throughout Cook Inlet. The result of this work is a beluga density map
of Cook Inlet, which easily sums the belugas predicted within a given
geographic area. NMML developed its predictive habitat model from the
distribution and group size of beluga whales observed between 1994 and
2008. A 2-part ``hurdle'' model (a hurdle model in which there are two
processes, one generating the zeroes and one generating the positive
values) was applied to describe the physical and anthropogenic factors
that influence (1) beluga presence (mixed model logistic regression)
and (2) beluga count data (mixed model Poisson regression). Beluga
presence was negatively associated with sources of anthropogenic
disturbance and positively associated with fish availability and access
to tidal flats and sandy substrates. Beluga group size was positively
associated with tidal flats and proxies for seasonally available fish.
Using this analysis, Goetz et al. (2012) produced habitat maps for
beluga presence, group size, and the expected number of belugas in each
1 km\2\ cell of Cook Inlet. The habitat-based model developed by NMML
uses a Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS is a computer system
capable of capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically
reference information; that is, data identified according to location.
However, the Goetz et al. (2012) model does not incorporate seasonality
into the density estimates. Rather, Apache considers the seasonal
considerations of beluga density into the prioritization of the seismic
program (as discussion in more detail later in this
[[Page 80404]]
document) in addition to other factors such as weather, ice conditions,
and seismic needs.
2. Non-Beluga Whale Species Density Estimates
Estimated densities of other marine mammals in the proposed project
area were estimated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS
for Cook Inlet beluga whale between 2000 and 2012 in June (Rugh et al.,
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005b, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al., 2008,
2009, 2010, 2012; Hobbs et al., 2011). These surveys were flown in June
to collect abundance data of beluga whales, but sightings of other
marine mammals are also reported. Although these data are only
collected in one month each year, these surveys provide the best
available relatively long term data set for sighting information in the
proposed project area. The general trend in marine mammal sighting is
that beluga whales and harbor seals are seen most frequently in upper
Cook Inlet, with higher concentrations of harbor seals near haul out
sites on Kalgin Island and of beluga whales near river mouths,
particularly the Susitna River. The other marine mammals of interest
for this IHA (killer whales, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions) are
observed infrequently in upper Cook Inlet and more commonly in lower
Cook Inlet. In addition, these densities are calculated based on a
relatively large area that was surveyed, much larger than the proposed
seismic area. Furthermore, these annual surveys are conducted only in
June (numbers from August surveys were not used because the area
surveyed was not provided), so it does not account for seasonal
variations in distribution or habitat use of each species. Therefore,
the use of these data to estimate density likely provides much higher
estimates of the probability of observing these animals in the project
area.
Table 5 in Apache's application provides a summary of the results
of each annual NMFS survey conducted in June from 2000 to 2012. The
total number of individuals sighted for each survey by year is
reported, as well as total hours for the entire survey and total area
surveyed. To estimate density of marine mammals, total number of
individuals (other species) observed for the entire survey area by year
(surveys usually last several days) was divided by the total number of
hours for each aerial survey by the approximate total area surveyed for
each year (density = individuals/hour/km\2\). As noted previously, the
total number of animals observed for the entire survey includes both
lower and upper Cook Inlet, so the total number reported and used to
calculate density is higher than the number of marine mammals
anticipated to be observed in the project area. In particular, the
total number of harbor seals observed on several surveys is very high
due to several large haul outs in lower and middle Cook Inlet. Table 6
in Apache's application presents maximum and average density estimates
for harbor seals, harbor porpoises, killer whales, and Steller sea
lions. The maximum density estimate for each species is based on the
highest density noted in Table 5 in Apache's application in a single
year during the 2000 to 2012 time period. The average density estimate
for each species is based on the average of the data presented in Table
5 in Apache's application from all 13 of these years combined.
Calculation of Takes by Harassment
1. Beluga Whales
As a result of discussions with NMFS, Apache has used the NMML
model (Goetz et al., 2012a) for the calculation of takes in this
proposed IHA. Apache has established two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2) and
proposes to conduct seismic surveys within all, or part of these zones;
to be determined as weather, ice, and priorities dictate. Apache has
committed to limit the total number of beluga whale takes to no more
than 30 during the effective period of this proposed IHA (March 1
through December 31, 2014). In order to estimate when that level is
reached, Apache has developed a formula based on the total area of each
seismic survey project zone (including the 160 dB buffer) and the
average density of beluga whales for each zone (based on the NMML
model. Table 7 in Apache's application and Table 4 in this document
present the values of the total ensonified area for Zones 1 and 2 and
the average density estimates. At this time the 160 dB buffer is 9.5 km
(5.9 mi), if Apache conducts another SSV which has a different 160 dB
buffer, the new buffer will be used with the same methodology outlined
below.
Table 4--Expected Beluga Whale Takes, Total Area of Zone, and Average Beluga Whale Density Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected beluga takes
from NMML model Total area of zone Average take density
(including the 160 dB (km\2\) (including the (dx)
buffer) 160 dB buffer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1............................... 28 1319 d1 = 0.0212
Zone 2............................... 29 5160 d2 = 0.0056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache will limit surveying in the proposed seismic survey area
(Zones 1 and 2 presented in Figure 2 of Apache's application) to ensure
a maximum of 30 beluga takes during the 2014 proposed program. In order
to ensure that Apache does not exceed 30 beluga whale takes, Apache
developed the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31DE13.169
This formula also allows Apache to have flexibility to prioritize
survey locations in response to local weather, ice, and operational
constraints. Apache may choose to survey portions of a zone or a zone
in its entirety, and the analysis
[[Page 80405]]
in this proposed IHA notice takes this into account. Using this
formula, if Apache surveys the entire area of Zone 1 (1,319 km\2\),
then essentially none of Zone 2 will be surveyed because the input in
the calculation denoted by d2A2 would essentially
need to be zero to ensure that the total allotted proposed take of
beluga whales is not exceeded. The use of this formula will ensure that
Apache's proposed seismic program, including the 160 dB buffer, will
not exceed 30 calculated beluga takes.
Apache proposes to initially limit actual survey areas, including
160 dB buffer zones, to satisfy the formula denoted here. Apache will
operate in Zone 1 or Zone 2 until the 30 calculated takes of belugas
has been met or the IHA expires, whichever occurs first. If Apache
reaches the calculated 30 takes, Apache will initiate discussions with
NMFS to continue seismic operations in lower Cook Inlet where beluga
whales have been rarely documented in recent years (Hobbs et al., 2000;
Rugh et al., 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2007; Hobbs
et al., 2011; Shelden et al., 2012; Goetz et al., 2012b). This may
result in additional mitigation or monitoring requirements to ensure
that no additional takes of beluga whales occur.
2. Other Marine Mammal Species
The estimated number of other Cook Inlet marine mammals that may be
potentially harassed during the seismic surveys was calculated by
multiplying the average density estimates (presented in Table 6 in
Apache's application and Table 6 in this document) by the area
ensonified by levels >=160 dB re [micro]Pa rms (see Appendix C and
Appendix D in Apache's application for more information) by the number
of days estimated to be seismically surveyed.
Apache anticipates that a crew will collect seismic data for 10-12
hours per day over approximately 160 days over the course of 8 to 9
months. It is assumed that over the course of these 160 days, 100 days
would be working in the offshore region and 60 days in the shallow,
intermediate, and deep nearshore region. Of those 60 days in the
nearshore region, 20 days would be in each depth. It is important to
note that environmental conditions (such as ice, wind, fog) will play a
significant role in the actual operating days; therefore, these
estimates are conservative in order to provide a basis for probability
of encountering these marine mammal species in the project area.
The number of estimated takes by harassment was calculated using
the following assumptions:
The number of nearshore and shallow water survey days is
20 and daily acoustic footprint is 462 km\2\ (178 mi\2\).
The number of nearshore and intermediate water depth
survey days is 20 and daily acoustic footprint is 629 km\2\ (243
mi\2\).
The number of nearshore and deep water depth survey days
is 20 and daily acoustic footprint is 623 km\2\ (241 mi\2\).
The number of offshore survey days is 100 and daily
footprint is 517 km\2\ (200 mi\2\).
Table 8 in Apache's application and Table 5 in this document show
the estimated maximum and average takes by species for the program with
the methods and assumptions outlined above.
Table 5--Maximum and Average Encounter Probability (maximum level b take estimates) per Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow Intermediate Deep Offshore Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Ensonified (km\2\)............................. 462 629 623 517 2231
Survey days......................................... 20 20 20 100 160
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species max avg max avg max avg max avg max avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seals.............................. 62.9 47.3 85.6 64.4 84.8 63.8 351.9 264.5 585.2 439.9
Harbor porpoises.......................... 3.5 0.8 4.8 1.1 4.7 1.1 19.6 4.5 32.5 7.6
Killer whales............................. 1.0 0.1 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.2 5.8 0.8 9.6 1.3
Steller sea lions......................... 3.2 1.5 4.4 2.0 4.3 2.0 17.9 8.4 29.8 13.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow water = 5-21 m
Intermediate water = 21-38 m
Deep water = 38-54 m
Take estimates = density (from Table 6 in Apache's application) * area ensonified >= 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa rms from JASCO (Appendix C in Apache's
application) * no. of days estimated to be seismically surveyed.
Table 5 here identifies the worst-case probability of encountering
these marine mammal species within the 160 dB zone during the survey
and does not account for seasonal distribution of these species, haul
outs of harbor seals and Steller sea lions, or the rigorous mitigation
and monitoring techniques implemented by Apache to reduce Level B takes
to all species. The following text describes each point further.
3. Seasonal Distribution
Hobbs et al. (2005) was able to incorporate seasonality into their
study, but it was not intended to provide density modeling. While Goetz
et al. (2012) provide a more sophisticated approach to estimating
density of beluga whales, based on the design of the model, Apache
could not include seasonality as an input to the model for estimating
density. Therefore, Apache considered seasonality of beluga whales
qualitatively in planning its seismic survey rather than
quantitatively. Apache has flown regular aerial surveys for Cook Inlet
beluga whales in 2012 and 2013. Conducting these surveys has aided
Apache in understanding the seasonal distribution of Cook Inlet beluga
whales. These sources confirm that there are dramatic shifts in beluga
distribution throughout the year; and that these shifts must be
incorporated into operational planning. To accomplish Apache's goal of
zero beluga takes, Apache will incorporate regular aerial surveys and
seasonal considerations of beluga presence into the prioritization of
their seismic program, in addition to other factors such as weather,
ice conditions, and operations.
For other marine mammals, data used to estimate probability of
sightings for Cook Inlet are based on a 3-4 day aerial survey conducted
in one month (June) of each year. This aerial survey does not take into
account that marine mammal species are not evenly distributed across
Cook Inlet in these numbers and that animals seen in June at those
levels may not be observed in that same area 2 months later. Because
there are no other systematic surveys for Cook Inlet that provide the
level of detail for these years, these surveys provide the best
[[Page 80406]]
available data for estimating takes. In particular, killer whales,
harbor porpoises, and Steller sea lions are expected to be observed
more frequently in lower and mid-Cook Inlet; while beluga whales and
harbor seals are more likely to be following the salmon and eulachon
fish runs throughout Cook Inlet. This is important because if Apache
can begin conducting seismic surveys in lower Cook Inlet in the fall,
when beluga whales are typically feeding in upper Cook Inlet, the
likelihood of observing (and exposing) beluga whales to airguns is much
lower.
4. Pinniped Haul-Outs
Seismic surveys in the Trading Bay region have resulted in numerous
sightings of individual harbor seals. Apache does not anticipate
encountering large haul-outs of seals or Steller sea lions in the
project area but expects to continue to observe curious individual
harbor seals; particularly during large fish runs in the various rivers
draining into Cook Inlet. These density estimates are skewed by the
numbers observed in large haul-outs during the aerial surveys; seals on
land would not be exposed to in-water sounds during that time. Seals in
the water usually travel in small groups or as singles.
For many of the same reasons discussed for harbor seals, the number
of actual takes by harassment of Steller sea lions are expected to be
much lower than calculated. In all of the NMFS aerial surveys, no
Steller sea lions were observed in upper Cook Inlet. Less than five
Steller sea lions have been observed by the Port of Anchorage
monitoring program, and those observed have been single, juvenile
animals (likely male). Apache anticipates less than five Steller sea
lions in the project area.
5. Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
As described earlier in this document, Apache proposes to implement
a monitoring and mitigation program to reduce Level B harassment,
particularly to beluga whales. Apache will shut down airgun operations
if any beluga whales are sighted within or approaching the 160 dB zone
and has committed in its IHA application to take no more than 30 beluga
whales by harassment in 1 year. Based on this mitigation program, lower
levels of beluga takes are anticipated from those proposed to be taken
by harassment. Given that belugas are usually transiting from one
feeding area to another in lower concentrations, these estimates appear
to be reasonable in assessing probability of beluga whales potentially
observed. This includes conducting aerial overflights near larger river
mouths where belugas are known to congregate so that Apache can adjust
the operational schedule to avoid operating in areas of important
feeding times when large numbers of whales are present.
Furthermore, the total number of days actually surveying near river
mouths is much lower than the 160 days used to estimate takes in these
different water depths, so this probability sighting table is an
overestimate. Therefore, due to actual number of days and hours likely
to be operating airguns near river mouths and the strict monitoring and
mitigation measures to be used when operating near rivers, the actual
number of takes by harassment estimated for beluga whales is expected
to be much lower than the numbers presented in Table 8 in Apache's
application and Table 5 in this document.
Summary of Proposed Level B Takes
Table 6 here outlines the density estimates used to estimate Level
B takes, the proposed Level B harassment take levels, the abundance of
each species in Cook Inlet, the percentage of each species or stock
estimated to be taken, and current population trends. In some cases,
the estimated Level B take estimates are lower than those presented
earlier in this document. This is because of mitigation measures and
requirements to cease operations once these proposed take levels are
met.
Table 6--Density Estimates, Proposed Level B Harassment Take Levels, Species or Stock Abundance, Percentage of
Population Proposed To Be Taken, and Species Trend Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average density
Species (/hr/ Proposed level Abundance Percentage of Trend
km\2\) B take population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale................. Zone 1 = 0.0212 30 283............ 10.6 Decreasing.
Zone 2 = 0.0056
Harbor Seal.................. 0.00512........ 200 22,900......... 0.87 Stable.
Harbor Porpoise.............. 0.00009........ 20 25,987......... 0.08 No reliable
information.
Killer Whale................. 0.00001........ 10 1,123 0.89 Resident stock
(resident) 552 1.8 possibly
(transient). increasing
transient
stock stable.
Steller Sea Lion............. 0.00016........ 20 45,916......... 0.04 Decreasing but
with regional
variability
(some stable).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact
Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes,
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment,
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any
responses (critical reproductive time or location, feeding, migration,
etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment
takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
Given the proposed mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries
or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Apache's
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, and none are proposed to be
authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur
hearing impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological
effects. The number of takes that are anticipated and proposed to be
authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral
[[Page 80407]]
harassment. The seismic airguns do not operate continuously over a 24-
hour period. Rather airguns are operational for a few hours at a time
totaling about 12 hours a day.
Both Cook Inlet beluga whales and the western stock of Steller sea
lions are listed as endangered under the ESA. Both stocks are also
considered depleted under the MMPA, and both stocks are declining at a
rate of about 1.1-1.5 percent per year. The other three species that
may be taken by harassment during Apache's proposed seismic survey
program are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA nor as
depleted under the MMPA.
Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and
harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually
assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are
those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. When in the
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive
to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10-20 km (6-12 mi) of
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al., 2005). However,
as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed to anthropogenic
sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the results
from the Beaufort Sea surveys do not directly relate to potential
reactions of Cook Inlet beluga whales. Also, due to the dispersed
distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during winter and the
concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from late April
through early fall, belugas would likely occur in small numbers in the
survey area designated as Zone 2 by Apache during the survey period.
For the same reason, it is unlikely that animals would be exposed to
received levels capable of causing injury.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned,
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term
changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B
harassment''. Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area
that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the
activity are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small
portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and
other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary
biological functions. In addition, the area where the survey will take
place is not known to be an important location where beluga whales
congregate for feeding, calving, or nursing. The primary location for
these biological life functions occur in the Susitna Delta region of
upper Cook Inlet. NMFS proposes to implement a 16 km (10 mi) seasonal
exclusion from seismic survey operations in this region from April 15-
October 15. The highest concentrations of belugas are typically found
in this area from early May through September each year. NMFS has
incorporated a 2-week buffer on each end of this seasonal use timeframe
to account for any anomalies in distribution and marine mammal usage.
Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated
marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, and shutdowns or power downs when
marine mammals are seen within defined ranges will further reduce
short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity.
In all cases, the effects of the seismic survey are expected to be
short-term, with no lasting biological consequence. Therefore, the
exposure of cetaceans to sounds produced by this phase of Apache's
proposed seismic survey is not anticipated to have an effect on annual
rates of recruitment or survival.
Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed
seismic surveys more than once during the timeframe of the project.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects
on pinnipeds are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a
limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in
behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment''.
Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is
surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity
are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small portion
of pinniped habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas
within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions.
In addition, the area where the survey will take place is not known to
be an important location where pinnipeds haul out. The closest known
haul-out site is located on Kalgin Island, which is about 22 km from
the McArther River. Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds
produced by this phase of Apache's proposed seismic survey is not
anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed
previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat''
section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of
marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to
not affect annual rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in
the area. Based on the size of Cook Inlet where feeding by marine
mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey
activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area
would be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist
elsewhere. Additionally, seismic survey operations will not occur in
the primary beluga feeding and calving habitat during times of high
use.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from Apache's proposed seismic survey will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
The requested takes proposed to be authorized represent 10.6
percent of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 283
animals (Allen and Angliss, 2013), 0.89 percent of the Alaska resident
stock and 1.8 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering
Sea stock of killer whales (1,123 residents and 552 transients), and
0.08 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately 25,987 harbor
porpoises. The take requests presented for harbor seals represent 0.87
percent of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock of approximately 29,175
animals. The requested takes proposed for Steller sea lions represent
0.04 percent of the western stock of approximately 45,916 animals.
These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock
that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment if each animal is
taken only once. The number of marine mammals taken is small relative
to the affected species or stocks. In addition, the mitigation and
monitoring measures (described previously in this document) proposed
for inclusion in the IHA (if issued) are expected to reduce even
further any potential disturbance to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals
will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or
stocks.
[[Page 80408]]
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
Relevant Subsistence Uses
The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates
Native traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to
younger generations (NOAA, 2007).
The Cook Inlet beluga whale has traditionally been hunted by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the
1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary
subsistence hunters of Cook Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s and
1990s, Alaska Natives from villages in the western, northwestern, and
North Slope regions of Alaska either moved to or visited the south
central region and participated in the yearly subsistence harvest
(Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per year
(range 21-123) were taken in this harvest, including those successfully
taken for food and those struck and lost. NMFS has concluded that this
number is high enough to account for the estimated 14 percent annual
decline in the population during this time (Hobbs et al., 2008). Actual
mortality may have been higher, given the difficulty of estimating the
number of whales struck and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a
moratorium was enacted (Public Law 106-31) prohibiting the subsistence
take of Cook Inlet beluga whales except through a cooperative agreement
between NMFS and the affected Alaska Native organizations. Since the
Cook Inlet beluga whale harvest was regulated in 1999 requiring
cooperative agreements, five beluga whales have been struck and
harvested. Those beluga whales were harvested in 2001 (one animal),
2002 (one animal), 2003 (one animal), and 2005 (two animals). The
Native Village of Tyonek agreed not to hunt or request a hunt in 2007,
when no co-management agreement was to be signed (NMFS, 2008a).
On October 15, 2008, NMFS published a final rule that established
long-term harvest limits on the Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be
taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That
rule prohibits harvest for a 5-year period (2008-2012), if the average
abundance for the Cook Inlet beluga whales from the prior five years
(2003-2007) is below 350 whales. The next 5-year period that could
allow for a harvest (2013-2017), would require the previous five-year
average (2008-2012) to be above 350 whales. The 2008 Cook Inlet Beluga
Whale Subsistence Harvest Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (NMFS, 2008a) authorizes how many beluga whales can be taken
during a 5-year interval based on the 5-year population estimates and
10-year measure of the population growth rate. Based on the 2008-2012
5-year abundance estimates, no hunt occurred between 2008 and 2012
(NMFS, 2008a). The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which managed the
Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS, was disbanded by a
unanimous vote of the Tribes' representatives on June 20, 2012. At this
time, no harvest is expected in 2013 or 2014. Residents of the Native
Village of Tyonek are the primary subsistence users in Knik Arm area.
Data on the harvest of other marine mammals in Cook Inlet are
lacking. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor
seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine
mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of
Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest
in Cook Inlet.
Some detailed information on the subsistence harvest of harbor
seals is available from past studies conducted by the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (Wolfe et al., 2009). In 2008, only 33 harbor seals were
taken for harvest in the Upper Kenai-Cook Inlet area. In the same
study, reports from hunters stated that harbor seal populations in the
area were increasing (28.6%) or remaining stable (71.4%). The specific
hunting regions identified were Anchorage, Homer, Kenai, and Tyonek,
and hunting generally peaks in March, September, and November (Wolfe et
al., 2009).
Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the
authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the
availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use.
NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as:
an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to
reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a
harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to
abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence
users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals
and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine
mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The primary concern is the disturbance of marine mammals through
the introduction of anthropogenic sound into the marine environment
during the proposed seismic survey. Marine mammals could be
behaviorally harassed and either become more difficult to hunt or
temporarily abandon traditional hunting grounds. However, the proposed
seismic survey should not have any impacts to beluga harvests as none
currently occur in Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence harvests of
other marine mammal species are limited in Cook Inlet.
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence
Hunts
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of
Cooperation or information that identifies what measures have been
taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. NMFS
regulations define Arctic waters as waters above 60[deg] N. latitude.
Consistent with NMFS' implementing regulations, Apache met with the
Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC)--a now dissolved Alaska Native
Organization (ANO) that represented Cook Inlet tribes--on March 29,
2011, to discuss the proposed activities and discuss any subsistence
concerns. Apache also met with the Tyonek Native Corporation on
November 9, 2010 and the Salamatof Native Corporation on November 22,
2010. Additional meetings were held with the Native Village of Tyonek,
the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, and Knik Tribal Council, and the Ninilchik
Traditional Council. According to Apache, during these meetings, no
concerns were raised regarding potential conflict with subsistence
harvest of marine mammals. Apache has identified the following features
that are intended to reduce impacts to subsistence users:
In-water seismic activities will follow mitigation
procedures to minimize effects on the behavior of marine mammals and,
therefore, opportunities for harvest by Alaska Native communities; and
Regional subsistence representatives may support recording
marine mammal observations along with marine mammal biologists during
the monitoring programs and will be provided with annual reports.
Since the issuance of the April 2012 IHA, Apache has maintained
regular
[[Page 80409]]
and consistent communication with federally recognized Alaska Natives.
The Alaska Natives, Native Corporations, and ANOs that Apache has
communicated with include: the Native Village of Tyonek; Tyonek Native
Corporation; Ninilchik Native Association; Ninilchik Traditional
Council; Salamatof Native Association; Knikatnu; Knik Native Council;
Alexander Creek; Cook Inlet Region, Inc.; the Native Village of
Eklutna; Kenaitze Indian Tribe; and Seldovia Native Assocaition. Apache
has shared information gathered during the seismic survey conducted
under the April 2012 IHA and hosted an information exchange with Alaska
Native Villages, Native Corporations, and other Non-Governmental
Organizations in the spring of 2013 where data from the past year's
monitoring operations would be presented.
Apache and NMFS recognize the importance of ensuring that ANOs and
federally recognized tribes are informed, engaged, and involved during
the permitting process and will continue to work with the ANOs and
tribes to discuss operations and activities. On February 6, 2012, in
response to requests for government-to-government consultations by the
CIMMC and Native Village of Eklutna, NMFS met with representatives of
these two groups and a representative from the Ninilchik. We engaged in
a discussion about the proposed IHA for phase 1 of Apache's seismic
program, the MMPA process for issuing an IHA, concerns regarding Cook
Inlet beluga whales, and how to achieve greater coordination with NMFS
on issues that impact tribal concerns. Following the publication of
this proposed IHA, NMFS will contact the local Native Villages to
inform them of the availability of the Federal Register notice and the
opening of the public comment period and to invite their input. Apache
has continued to meet with the Native Village of Tyonke, Tyonek Native
Corporation, Cook Inlet Region Inc., and other recognized tribes and
village corporations in the Cook Inlet Region throughout 2013.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determination
The project will not have any effect on current beluga whale
harvests because no beluga harvest will take place in 2014.
Additionally, the proposed seismic survey area is not an important
native subsistence site for other subsistence species of marine
mammals. Also, because of the relatively small proportion of marine
mammals utilizing Cook Inlet, the number harvested is expected to be
extremely low. Therefore, because the proposed program would result in
only temporary disturbances, the seismic program would not impact the
availability of these other marine mammal species for subsistence uses.
The timing and location of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor
seals may coincide with Apache's project, but because this subsistence
hunt is conducted opportunistically and at such a low level (NMFS,
2013c), Apache's program is not expected to have an impact on the
subsistence use of harbor seals.
NMFS anticipates that any effects from Apache's proposed seismic
survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga
whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be
short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in
behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the
authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to
meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or
avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3)
placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the
subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow
subsistence needs to be met. Based on the description of the specified
activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that there will not be an unmitgable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from Apache's proposed activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the
ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area:
the Cook Inlet beluga whale and the western DPS of Steller sea lion. In
addition, the proposed action would occur within designated critical
habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS' Permits and Conservation
Division consulted with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources
Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of the first IHA to
Apache under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, which analyzed the
impacts in the other areas where Apache has proposed to conduct seismic
surveys, including Area 2 (the area covered in the second IHA).
On May 21, 2012, NMFS' Alaska Region issued a revised Biological
Opinion, which concluded that the IHA is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the marine mammal species (such as Cook Inlet
beluga whales and Steller sea lions) affected by the seismic survey or
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for Cook Inlet
beluga whales. Although the Biological Opinion considered the effects
of multiple years of seismic surveying in the entire project area as a
whole (see Figure 6 in the Biological Opinion), to be cautious, in
light of the change in scope, NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division
requested reinitiation of consultation under section 7 of the ESA to
address these changes in the proposed action. A new Biological Opinion
was issued on February 14, 2013. That Biological Opinion determined
that the issuance of an IHA is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Cook Inlet beluga whales or the western distinct
population segment of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify
Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. Finally, the Biological
Opinion included an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for Cook Inlet
beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The ITS contains reasonable and
prudent measures implemented by terms and conditions to minimize the
effects of this take.
The Biological Opinion issued on February 14, 2013, is valid
through December 31, 2014. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has
discussed this third IHA request with NMFS' Alaska Region and
determined that this proposed IHA falls within the scope and analysis
of the current Biological Opinion. As proposed in this notice, this IHA
request does not trigger any of the factors requiring a reinitiation of
consultation. Therefore, a new section 7 consultation will not be
conducted.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In February 2013, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA)
and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) regarding the
issuance of the second IHA to Apache for the take of marine mammals
incidental to a seismic survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS is
currently reviewing the February 2013 EA to determine if the scope of
this IHA request falls within the analysis of that EA. If that review
determines that this proposed action does not fall within the scope of
the current analysis, then NMFS will, pursuant to NEPA, conduct a new
analysis to determine if the proposed action will have a significant
effect on
[[Page 80410]]
the human environment. This analysis will be completed prior to the
issuance or denial of the IHA.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to Apache for the take of marine mammals incidental to
conducting a seismic survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska, from March 1
through December 31, 2014, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if
issued).
(1) This Authorization is valid from March 1, 2014, through
December 31, 2014.
(2) This Authorization is valid only for Apache's activities
associated with seismic survey operations that shall occur within the
areas denoted as Zone 1 and Zone 2 as depicted in Figure 2 of Apache's
November 2013 application to NMFS.
(3) Species Authorized and Level of Take.
(a) The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment
only, is limited to the following species in the waters of Cook Inlet:
(i) Odontocetes: 30 beluga whales; 20 harbor porpoise; and 10
killer whales.
(ii) Pinnipeds: 200 harbor seals and 20 Steller sea lions.
(iii) If any marine mammal species are encountered during seismic
activities that are not listed in conditions 3(a)(i) or (ii) for
authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels
(SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), then the
Holder of this Authorization must alter speed or course, powerdown or
shut-down the sound source to avoid take.
(b) The taking by injury (Level A harassment) serious injury, or
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(a) or the taking of
any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may
result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this
Authorization.
(c) If the number of detected takes of any marine mammal species
listed in condition 3(a) is met or exceeded, Apache shall immediately
cease survey operations involving the use of active sound sources
(e.g., airguns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
(4) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the
following acoustic sources (or sources with comparable frequency and
intensity):
(i) Two airgun arrays, each with a capacity of 2,400 in\3\;
(ii) Two airgun arrays, each with a capacity of 1,200 in\3\;
(iii) A 440 in\3\ airgun array;
(iv) A 10 in\3\ airgun;
(v) A Scott Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) transceiver; and
(vi) A Lightweight Release USBL transponder.
(5) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under
this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS or his
designee.
(6) The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, or
his designee at least 48 hours prior to the start of seismic survey
activities (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this
Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as
possible).
(7) Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements: The Holder of this
Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation and
monitoring requirements when conducting the specified activities to
achieve the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species
or stocks:
(a) Utilize a sufficient number of NMFS-qualified, vessel-based
Protected Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) (except during meal times
and restroom breaks, when at least one PSVO shall be on watch) to
visually watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source
vessels during daytime operations (from nautical twilight-dawn to
nautical twilight-dusk) and before and during start-ups of sound
sources day or night. Two PSVOs will be on each source vessel, and two
PSVOs will be on the support vessel to observe the exclusion and
disturbance zones. PSVOs shall have access to reticle binoculars (7 x
50 Fujinon), big-eye binoculars (25 x I50), and night vision devices.
PSVO shifts shall last no longer than 4 hours at a time. PSVOs shall
also make observations during daytime periods when the sound sources
are not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior, when
feasible. When practicable, as an additional means of visual
observation, Apache's vessel crew may also assist in detecting marine
mammals.
(b) In addition to the vessel-based PSVOs, utilize a shore-based
station to visually monitor for marine mammals. The shore-based station
will follow all safety procedures, including bear safety. The location
of the shore-based station will need to be sufficiently high to observe
marine mammals; the PSOs would be equipped with pedestal mounted ``big
eye'' (20 x 110) binoculars. The shore-based PSOs would scan the area
prior to, during, and after the survey operations involving the use of
sound sources, and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs via
radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or within
the project area.
(c) Weather and safety permitting, aerial surveys shall be
conducted on a daily basis. Surveys are to be flown even if the airguns
are not being fired. If weather or safety conditions prevent Apache
from conducting aerial surveys, seismic survey operations may proceed
subject to the terms and conditions of the IHA.
(i) When survey operations occur near a river mouth, Apache shall
conduct aerial surveys to identify large congregations of beluga whales
and harbor seal haul-outs.
(ii) Aerial surveys shall be conducted on a daily basis (weather
and safety permitting) when there are any seismic-related activities
(including but not limited to node laying/retrieval or airgun
operations) occurring north or east of a line from Tyonek across to the
eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area,
Cook Inlet (roughly the southern-most point of the Army Corps of
Engineers defined Region 9).
(iii) Aerial surveys may be conducted from either a helicopter or
fixed-wing aircraft. A fixed-wing aircraft may be used in lieu of a
helicopter. If flights are to be conducted with a fixed-wing aircraft,
it must have adequate viewing capabilities, i.e., view not obstructed
by wing or other part of the plane.
(iv) Weather and safety permitting, flight paths should encompass
areas from Anchorage, along the coastline of the Susitna Delta to
Tyonek, across the inlet to Point Possession, around the coastline of
Chickaloon Bay to Burnt Island, and across to Anchorage (or in reverse
order). Flights shall be conducted so that the PSO has the ``inside''
view while following the exterior boundary line of the coverage area,
which reduces the need for flying tracklines back and forth across the
coverage area. The information relevant to PSO recording is provided in
Condition 7(e).
(v) Weather and safety permitting, aerial surveys will fly at an
altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal sighting,
aircraft will attempt to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft)
from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft will avoid approaching marine
[[Page 80411]]
mammals from head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft
over the marine mammal(s).
(d) PSVOs shall conduct monitoring while the air gun array and
nodes are being deployed or recovered from the water.
(e) Record the following information when a marine mammal is
sighted:
(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable),
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue,
apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance,
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and
behavioral pace;
(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up
or power-down), Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun
glare; and
(iii) The data listed under Condition 7(e)(ii) shall also be
recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a
watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
(f) Establish a 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) and 190 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) ``exclusion zone'' (EZ) for marine mammals before the
full array (2400 in\3\) is in operation; and a 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
(rms) and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) EZ before a single airgun (10
in\3\) is in operation, respectively.
(g) Visually observe the entire extent of the EZ (180 dB re 1
[mu]Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] for
pinnipeds) using NMFS-qualified PSVOs, for at least 30 minutes (min)
prior to starting the airgun array (day or night). If the PSVO finds a
marine mammal within the EZ, Apache must delay the seismic survey until
the marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSVO sees a marine
mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSVO shall wait
30 min. If the PSVO sees no marine mammals during that time, they
should assume that the animal has moved beyond the EZ. If for any
reason the entire radius cannot be seen for the entire 30 min (i.e.,
rough seas, fog, darkness), or if marine mammals are near, approaching,
or in the EZ, the airguns may not be ramped-up.
(h) Implement a ``ramp-up'' procedure when starting up at the
beginning of seismic operations or any time after the entire array has
been shut down for more than 10 min, which means start the smallest
sound source first and add sound sources in a sequence such that the
source level of the array shall increase in steps not exceeding
approximately 6 dB per 5-min period. During ramp-up, the PSVOs shall
monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, a power-down, or
shutdown shall be implemented as though the full array were
operational. Therefore, initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown
requires that the PSVOs be able to visually observe the full EZ as
described in Condition 7(f) (above).
(i) Alter speed or course during seismic operations if a marine
mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to
enter the relevant EZ. If speed or course alteration is not safe or
practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still appears
likely to enter the EZ, further mitigation measures, such as a power-
down or shutdown, shall be taken.
(j) Power-down or shutdown the sound source(s) if a marine mammal
is detected within, approaches, or enters the relevant EZ. A shutdown
means all operating sound sources are shut down (i.e., turned off). A
power-down means reducing the number of operating sound sources to a
single operating 10 in\3\ airgun, which reduces the EZ to the degree
that the animal(s) is no longer in or about to enter it.
(k) Following a power-down, if the marine mammal approaches the
smaller designated EZ, the sound sources must then be completely shut
down. Seismic survey activity shall not resume until the PSVO has
visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the EZ and is not likely
to return, or has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min for species
with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min
for species with longer dive durations (large odontocetes, including
killer whales and beluga whales).
(l) Following a power-down or shutdown and subsequent animal
departure, survey operations may resume following ramp-up procedures
described in Condition 7(h).
(m) Marine geophysical surveys may continue into night and low-
light hours if such segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the
entire relevant EZs can be effectively monitored visually (i.e.,
PSVO(s) must be able to see the extent of the entire relevant EZ).
(n) No initiation of survey operations involving the use of sound
sources is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during low-
light hours (such as in dense fog or heavy rain).
(o) If a beluga whale is visually sighted approaching or within the
160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound
source(s) shall be shut down until the animals are no longer present
within the 160-dB zone.
(p) Whenever aggregations or groups of killer whales and/or harbor
porpoises are detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance
zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound source(s) shall be
shut-down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB
zone. An aggregation or group of whales/porpoises shall consist of five
or more individuals of any age/sex class.
(q) Apache must not operate airguns within 10 miles (16 km) of the
mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River
to the Little Susitna River) between mid-April and mid-October (to
avoid any effects to belugas in an important feeding and potential
breeding area).
(r) Seismic survey operations involving the use of air guns and
pingers must cease if takes of any marine mammal are met or exceeded.
(8) Reporting Requirements: The Holder of this Authorization is
required to:
(a) Submit a weekly field report, no later than close of business
(Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic
survey activities take place. The field reports will summarize species
detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting,
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine
mammals taken.
(b) Submit a monthly report, no later than the 15th of each month,
to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division for all months during which
in-water seismic survey activities occur. These reports must contain
and summarize the following information:
(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea
conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and
associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal
sightings;
(ii) Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and
behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity
(number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all
monitoring activities;
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of: (A) Pinnipeds that
have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation)
at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
and/or 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific
behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (B) cetaceans that have been
exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at
received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and/
or 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors
those individuals exhibited.
[[Page 80412]]
(iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the:
(A) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take
Statement (ITS); and (B) mitigation measures of the Incidental
Harassment Authorization. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall
confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any
conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for
minimizing the adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act-
listed marine mammals.
(c) Submit a draft Technical Report on all activities and
monitoring results to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division within 90
days of the completion of the Apache survey. The Technical Report will
include:
(i) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period,
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and
detectability of marine mammals);
(ii) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare);
(iii) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
(iv) Analyses of the effects of survey operations;
(v) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could
affect detectability), such as: (A) Initial sighting distances versus
survey activity state; (B) closest point of approach versus survey
activity state; (C) observed behaviors and types of movements versus
survey activity state; (D) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus
survey activity state; (E) distribution around the source vessels
versus survey activity state; and (F) estimates of take by Level B
harassment based on presence in the 160 dB harassment zone.
(d) Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after
receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS decides that
the draft report needs no comments, the draft report shall be
considered to be the final report.
(e) Apache must immediately report to NMFS if 25 belugas are
detected within the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) disturbance zone during
seismic survey operations to allow NMFS to consider making necessary
adjustments to monitoring and mitigation.
(9)(a) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity
clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by
this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious
injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or
entanglement), Apache shall immediately cease the specified activities
and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his
designees, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report
must include the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
(iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(iv) Description of the incident;
(v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(vi) Water depth;
(vii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(x) The fate of the animal(s); and
(xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is
available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Apache to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
(b) In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
Apache will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his
designees, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline. The report must
include the same information identified in the Condition 9(a) above.
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with Apache to determine whether modifications
in the activities are appropriate.
(c) In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in Condition 2
of this Authorization (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with
moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Apache shall
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his designees, the NMFS
Alaska Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773), and the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators within 24 hours of the discovery. Apache shall
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews
the circumstances of the incident.
(10) Apache is required to comply with the Reasonable and Prudent
Measures and Terms and Conditions of the ITS corresponding to NMFS'
Biological Opinion issued to both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources.
(11) A copy of this Authorization and the ITS must be in the
possession of all contractors and PSOs operating under the authority of
this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
(12) Penalties and Permit Sanctions: Any person who violates any
provision of this Incidental Harassment Authorization is subject to
civil and criminal penalties, permit sanctions, and forfeiture as
authorized under the MMPA.
[[Page 80413]]
(13) This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the
authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the
species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or
stocks for subsistence uses.
Request for Public Comments
NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization,
and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for Apache's 3D
seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Please include with your comments
any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final
decision on Apache's request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: December 24, 2013.
Perry Gayaldo,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-31333 Filed 12-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P