[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12160-12184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04770]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC668
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 Furie Operating Alaska LLC
(Furie) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to a proposed 3D seismic survey in
Cook Inlet, Alaska, between May 2014 and May 2015. Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS requests comments on its
proposal to issue an IHA to Furie to take, by Level B harassment only,
six species of marine mammals during the specified activity.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 3,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael
Payne, Chief, 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 10-
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: Brian D. Hopper, 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.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of
an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny the authorization.
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
NMFS received an application on January 23, 2013, from Furie for
the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to a 3D seismic
survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. In response to questions and
comments from NMFS, a revised application was submitted on March 7,
2013. Furie then decided to postpone the proposed seismic survey until
2014 and further revisions were made to the IHA application to reflect
this change in scheduling, and a final revised application was
submitted to NMFS on December 11, 2013. The seismic survey would be
conducted during the 2014 open water season (May to November), but the
IHA would be valid for 12 months to account for changes in the schedule
due to weather, shut downs from the presence of marine mammals, or
equipment maintenance.
The proposed 3D seismic surveys would employ the use of two source
vessels. Each source vessel would be equipped with compressors and 2400
in\3\ air gun arrays, although a lesser volume may be used if
practicable. The two vessels would work in tandem, alternating
discharge of the arrays to allow for efficient data acquisition and
resulting in fewer survey hours. In addition, one source vessel would
be equipped with a 440 in\3\ to 1,800 in\3\ shallow water air gun
array, which it can deploy at high tide in the intertidal area in less
than 1.8 m of water. The sensor, or receiving, system would be deployed
to rest on the seafloor. The proposed survey would take place in the
Kitchen Lights Unit (KLU) area of Cook Inlet, which encompasses
approximately 337 km\2\ (130 square miles (mi\2\). In order to acquire
data from the entire KLU area, the proposed seismic survey would be
conducted in Cook Inlet from approximately Tyonek at the northern
extent to the Forelands in the south, encompassing approximately 868
km\2\ (335 mi\2\) of
[[Page 12161]]
intertidal and offshore areas (see Figure A-2 in Furie's IHA
application). Impacts to marine mammals may occur from noise produced
from active acoustic sources (primarily air guns) used in the surveys.
Description of the Specified Activity
The proposed operations would be performed from multiple vessels;
however the exact number and type of vessel used would depend on the
contractor. The typical vessel use configuration for seismic surveys in
Cook Inlet by the bidding contractors is what follows. The proposed
survey would employ the use of two source vessels. Each source vessel
would be equipped with compressors and 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays. In
addition, one source vessel would be equipped with a 440 in\3\ to 1800
in\3\ shallow water air gun array, which it can deploy at high tide in
the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m of water. Shallow draft vessels
would support cable/nodal deployment and retrieval operations, and
monitoring/navigation vessels would also be used. Finally, smaller jet
boats would be used for personnel transport and node support in the
extremely shallow water of the intertidal area. For additional
information, such as vessel specifications, see Furie's application.
During the 2014 Cook Inlet open water season (May to November),
Furie proposes to survey the entire project area in approximately 120
days beginning in May 2014, with exact start dates and end dates
dependent on the timing of permits and actual survey days, which can be
influenced by other factors such as commercial fishing, other seismic
surveys operations in overlapping or adjacent areas, and general
operational factors (i.e., weather). Furie anticipates conducting
survey operations 24 hours per day (e.g., receiver line deployment and
retrieval, dependent on weather and permit conditions). During each 24
hour period, seismic operations would be active; however air guns would
only be used for approximately 2-3 hours during each of the slack tide
periods. There are approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour
day, therefore, air gun operations would be active during approximately
8-12 hours per day, if weather conditions allow.
3D Seismic Surveys
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. Data are typically collected using multiple types
of acoustic equipment. During the surveys, Furie proposes to use the
following in-water acoustic sources: two 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays; a
single 1800 in\3\ air gun array; a single 440 in\3\ air gun array; and
a pinger, or transceiver, may be used to determine receiver location.
In 2012, Apache Alaska Corporation (Apache) successfully measured the
sounds produced by the air guns and pingers during a 3D seismic survey
in Cook Inlet and the preliminary distances for the exclusion zone and
harassment zone are based on these results; however, the distances to
each sound threshold would be verified onsite and adjusted based on
actual measurements at the startup of the survey.
(1) Airguns
The 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays, the 1800 in\3\ air gun array, and
the 440 in\3\ air gun array would be used to obtain geological data
during the survey. In 2011, the acoustic source level of the 2400 in\3\
air gun array was predicted using an air gun array source model (AASM)
developed by JASCO (Warner et al., 2011). The AASM simulates the
expansion and oscillation of the air bubbles generated by each air gun
within a seismic array, taking into account pressure interaction
effects between bubbles from different air guns. It includes effects
from surface-reflected pressure waves, heat transfer from the bubbles
to the surrounding water, and the movements of bubbles due to their
buoyancy. The model outputs high-resolution air gun pressure signatures
for each air gun, which are superimposed with the appropriate time
delays to yield the overall array source signature in any direction.
Based on this modeling, the broadband seismic source level is
anticipated to be 240 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\/Hz at 1 meter or less with
dominant frequency components from 1 to 500 Hz. Higher frequencies are
expected to have increasingly lower decibel levels. For example, the
source level at 2,000 Hz is anticipated to be less than 180 dB re 1
[micro]Pa\2\/Hz at 1 meter. The 440 to 1800 in\3\ airgun array to be
used in the intertidal environment will have a lower sound level.
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 these thresholds for the nearshore survey locations are
provided in Table 1 and correspond to the three transects modeled at
each site in the onshore, offshore, and parallel to shore directions.
The distances to the thresholds for the channel survey locations are
provided in Table 2 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. The area ensonifed to the 160
dB isopleth for the channel survey is 389 km\2\.
Table 1--Distances to Sound Thresholds for the Nearshore Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water depth at Distance in the Distance in the Distance in the
Threshold (dB re 1 [micro]Pa) source location onshore direction Offshore Parallel to Shore
(m) (km) Direction (km) Direction (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160................................. 5 0.85 3.91 1.48
25 4.70 6.41 6.34
45 5.57 4.91 6.10
180................................. 5 0.46 0.60 0.54
25 1.06 1.07 1.42
45 0.70 0.83 0.89
190................................. 5 0.28 0.33 0.33
25 0.35 0.36 0.44
45 0.10 0.10 0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12162]]
Table 2--Distance to Sound Thresholds for the Channel Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water depth at Distance in the Distance in the
Threshold (dB re 1 [micro]Pa) source location broadside endfire direction
(m) direction (km) (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160.................................................... 80 4.24 4.89
180.................................................... 80 0.91 0.98
190.................................................... 80 0.15 0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Areas Ensonified to 160 dB for Nearshore Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearshore survey depth Area ensonifed to
classification Depth range (m) 160 dB (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow........................... 5-21 346
Mid-Depth......................... 21-38 458
Deep.............................. 38-54 455
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Pingers
These instruments would be operated during survey operations to
determine the exact position of the nodes after they have been placed
on the seafloor. One device, the Scout Ultra-Short Baseline
Transceiver, operates at frequencies between 33 and 55 kHz with a
source level of 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m. The other device, an LR
Ultra-Short Baseline Transponder, operates at a frequency of 35-50 kHz
at a source level of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m. With respect to these
two sources, Furie provided and NMFS relied on the distances to the
Level B harassment thresholds estimated for the ``louder'' of the two;
therefore, assuming a simple spreading loss of 20 log R (where R is
radius), with a source level of 188 dB the distance to the 190, 180,
and 160 dB isopleths would be 1, 3, and 25 m, respectively. Another
technique for locating the nodes in deeper water is called Ocean Bottom
Receiver Location, which uses a small volume air gun (10 in\3\) firing
parallel to the node line.
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 four cetacean species
(three odontocetes) (toothed whales) and one mysticete (baleen whale):
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), killer whale (Orcinus orca),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) 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.
Of the six marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed
marine survey area, only 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). 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. Over the
last 10 years (2002-2012), the Cook Inlet beluga whale population has
declined at a rate of 0.6 percent per year (Allen and Angliss, 2013).
With respect to Steller sea lions, results of aerial surveys conducted
in 2008 (Fritz et al., 2008) confirmed that the recent (2004-2008)
overall trend in the western population of adult and juvenile Steller
sea lions in Alaska is stable or possibly in decline; however, there
continues to be considerable regional variability in recent trends.
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 largely based on dispersed fall and
winter feeding and transit areas in waters where whales typically
appear in lower densities or deeper waters (76 FR 20180, April 11,
2011).
Cetaceans
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
in 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
[[Page 12163]]
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, PSOs onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher
reported a group of seven beluga whales approximately 0.5 nm 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 SSV conducted in
September 2011 because during this time of year they are more likely to
be in the upper regions of Cook Inlet. Expected densities were
calculated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS between
2000 and 2011 (Rugh et al., 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007; Shelden et al., 2008, 2009, 2010; Hobbs et al., 2011). Those
densities are presented below in Table 6.
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.
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) 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
(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 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.
Gray Whale--The gray whale is a large baleen whale known to have
one of the longest migrations of any mammal. This whale can be found
all along the shallow coastal waters of the North Pacific Ocean.
The Eastern North Pacific stock, which includes those whales that
travel along the coast of Alaska, was delisted from the ESA in 1994
after a distinction was made between the western and eastern
populations (59 FR 31094, June 16, 1994). It is estimated that
approximately 18,000 individuals exist in the eastern stock (Allen and
Angliss, 2012).
Although observations of gray whales are rare within Cook Inlet,
marine mammal observers noted individual gray whales on nine occasions
in the vicinity of Furie's proposed survey location in 2012 while
conducting marine mammal monitoring for seismic survey activities under
the IHA NMFS issued to Apache: Four times in May; twice in June; and
three times in July (Apache, 2013). Annual survey conducted by NMFS in
Cook Inlet since 1993 have resulted in a total of five gray whale
sightings (Rugh et al., 2005). Although Cook Inlet is not believed to
comprise either essential feeding or social ground, and gray whales are
typically not observed within upper Cook Inlet, due to the sightings
reported during Apache's survey in 2012, Furie includes gray whales in
their request for takes incidental to seismic survey activities in
2013.
Pinnipeds
Two species of pinnipeds may be encountered in Cook Inlet: Harbor
seal and Steller sea lion.
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 south-
southwest of Anchorage at the Chickaloon, Little Susitna, Susitna,
Ivan, McArthur, and Beluga Rivers (Rugh et al., 2005). Many harbor
seals were observed during the 3D seismic survey conducted under
Apache's April 2012 IHA, especially when survey operations were
conducted close to shore. NMFS and Apache do not anticipate
encountering large haulouts of seals in Area 2--the closest haulout
site to the action area is located on Kalgin Island, which is
approximately 22 km away from 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.
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).
[[Page 12164]]
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, from May 6 to September 30, 2012, one Steller sea
lion was observed on May 6, two on June 23, and one Steller sea lion
was observed on August 18, 2012, during a period when the air guns were
not active. Although Furie has requested takes of Steller sea lions,
Steller sea lions would be rare in the action area during seismic
survey operations.
Furie'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 draft Alaska 2013 SAR is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ak2013_draft.pdf.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
Operating active acoustic sources, such as air gun arrays, has the
potential for adverse effects on marine mammals.
Potential Effects of Air Gun Sounds on Marine Mammals
The effects of sounds from air gun 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, and can be
categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al., 1995):
(1) 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 odotocetes (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 air gun pulses under some
conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no overt
reactions. For example, the available evidence also indicates that Cook
Inlet beluga whales are less impacted behaviorally by anthropogenic
sounds compared to marine mammals in more pristine acoustic
environments (e.g., the Beaufort Sea) given the Cook Inlet population's
greater experience with anthropogenic sounds.
(2) 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).
Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa to
estimate the onset threshold for marine mammal behavioral harassment
for impulse noises (such as air gun pulses). As explained below, NMFS
has determined that use of this threshold is appropriate for Furie's
IHA considering the scientific literature pertaining to this issue and
the evidence specific to the marine mammal species and populations in
question.
(3) Masking
Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes,
which differ among species, but include communication between
individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, and learning about
their environment (e.g., predator avoidance) (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 noise and signals (that the animal utilizes)
overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the air gun noise
generated from the proposed seismic surveys, noise will consist of low
frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short durations (less
than one second). Lower frequency man-made noises 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 noise 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 air gun pulses can be ``stretched'' to seconds with long
decays (Madsen et al. 2006), although the intensity of the noise 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
[[Page 12165]]
stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009); however,
baleen whales are rarely reported to occur within the action area.
Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking, at
least partially, 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).
(4) Hearing Impairment
Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et
al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002; 2005). TS can
be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is
unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing
threshold will recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Just like
masking, marine mammals that suffer from PTS or TTS could have reduced
fitness in survival and reproduction, either permanently or
temporarily. Repeated noise exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS.
For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is
inversely related to the duration of the sound.
Researchers have studied TTS in certain captive odontocetes and
pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al., 2007).
However, there has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone
permanent hearing damage, i.e., permanent threshold shift (PTS), in
free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses
during realistic field conditions.
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter,
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound
must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals,
TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days.
For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing
sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly
after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and
durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine
mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by
exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Available data on TTS in marine
mammals are summarized in Southall et al. (2007).
To safely avoid the potential for injury, NMFS (1995, 2000)
concluded that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed
underwater noise at received levels exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (rms), respectively. Based on the available scientific
information, NMFS also assumes that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to
levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) may experience Level B
harassment.
For toothed whales, researchers have derived TTS information for
odontocetes from studies on captive bottlenose dolphin and beluga
whale. The experiments show that exposure to a single impulse at a
received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi, p-p), which is equivalent to 228
dB re 1 Pa (p-p), resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at
0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the
pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al.,
2002). For the one harbor porpoise tested, the received level of airgun
sound that elicited onset of TTS was lower (Lucke et al., 2009). If
these results from a single animal are representative, it is
inappropriate to assume that onset of TTS occurs at similar received
levels in all odontocetes (cf. Southall et al., 2007). Some cetaceans
apparently can incur TTS at considerably lower sound exposures than are
necessary to elicit TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin.
In pinnipeds, researchers have not measured TTS thresholds
associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of
underwater sound. Initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse)
exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular)
incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes
exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Ketten et
al., 2001). The TTS threshold for pulsed sounds has been indirectly
estimated as being an SEL of approximately 171 dB re 1
[micro]Pa\2\[middot]s (Southall et al., 2007) which would be equivalent
to a single pulse with a received level of approximately 181 to 186 dB
re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), or a series of pulses for which the highest rms
values are a few dB lower. Corresponding values for California sea
lions and northern elephant seals are likely to be higher (Kastak et
al., 2005).
No cases of TTS are expected as a result of Furie's proposed
activities given the strong likelihood that marine mammals would avoid
the approaching air guns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels
high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS, and the mitigation
measures proposed to be implemented during the survey described later
in this document.
Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be
total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter,
1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun
sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of
airguns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun
array might incur at least mild TTS, there has been further speculation
about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to
airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Gedamke et al.,
2008). Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative
of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single
exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit
PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and
other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al., 2007). PTS might occur at a
received sound level at least several dBs above that inducing mild TTS
if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise
times. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary
assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as airgun
pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than
the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, and probably greater than 6
dB (Southall et al., 2007).
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).
[[Page 12166]]
(5) 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. However, there is no definitive evidence that any of these
effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large
arrays of air guns, and beaked whales do not occur in the proposed
project area. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral
avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some
odontocetes (including belugas), and some pinnipeds, are especially
unlikely to incur non-auditory impairment or other physical effects.
The preliminary distances to the 180 and 190 dB thresholds for the air
gun array proposed to be used by Furie are provided above in Tables 1
and 2.
Therefore, it is unlikely that such effects would occur during
Furie's proposed survey given the brief duration of exposure and the
planned monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this
document.
(6) 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). Air
gun 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 2012 IHA for Apache's seismic
survey in Cook Inlet, 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 Apache's
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 Furie's proposed seismic survey.
Potential Effects From Pingers on Marine Mammals
Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed
for Furie'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.
Potential Effects From Vessels and Vessel Noise on Marine Mammals
Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will
temporarily increase in the action area during Furie's seismic survey
as a result of the operation of multiple vessels. To minimize the
effects of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, Furie
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 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, 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, 1995). Reactions to vessels
depends on whale activities and experience, habitat, boat type, and
boat behavior (Richardson, 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, 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, 1995).
The addition of multiple 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.
Potential Effects From Aircraft Noise on Marine Mammals
Furie 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 would not be used every day, but will be used
for surveys near river mouths. Aerial surveys would fly at an altitude
of 305 m (1,000 ft) when practicable and weather conditions permit. In
the event of a marine
[[Page 12167]]
mammal sighting, aircraft would try 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 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 1,000 ft (305 m),
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 600 to
800 ft. (e.g., Rugh et al., 2000). By applying the operational
requirements discussed above, sound levels underwater are not expected
to reach NMFS' harassment thresholds.
The majority of observations of pinnipeds reacting to aircraft
noise are associated with animals hauled out on land or ice. There are
very little 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, Furie would follow NMFS'
Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations found at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other
marine species, including prey 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 and are discussed below.
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 noise level.
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).
Potential Impacts to the Benthic Environment
Furie's seismic survey requires the deployment of a submersible
receiving and recording system in the inter-tidal and marine zones. The
systems that may be used are a nodal system, an ocean bottom cable
(OBC) system, or a combination of the two. The system would be deployed
in parallel lines, laid out in units or patches. An entire patch would
be placed on the seafloor prior to air gun activity. As the patches are
surveyed, the receiver lines would be moved either side to side or
inline to the next location. Placement and retrieval of the receivers
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 air guns and pingers until is 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.
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 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 adverse impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to
[[Page 12168]]
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses.
For the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Furie worked with
NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the
potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity as a result
of the survey activities.
Mitigation Measures Proposed in Furie's IHA Application
For the proposed mitigation measures, Furie listed the following
protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey in Cook Inlet.
(1) Operation of Mitigation Air Gun at Night
Furie 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 to alert marine
mammals of the presence of the seismic survey. The mitigation airgun
would operate on a longer duty cycle than the full airgun arrays,
firing every 30-45 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 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 safety radii.
(2) Designation of Disturbance and Safety Zones
NMFS typically identifies two zones to help with mitigation,
monitoring, and analyses. One zone is used for shutdowns to limit
marine mammal exposure to received sound levels that are >=180
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa for cetaceans and >=190 dBrms
re 1 [mu]Pa for pinnipeds, which is based on the assumption that SPLs
received at levels lower than these will not injure these animals or
impair their hearing abilities. In their IHA application, Furie refers
to the distances to the 180/190 dB thresholds as the ``exclusion''
radii; however, to avoid confusion with other actions, for consistency
NMFS will refer to this zone as the ``safety zone'' for the remainder
of this notice. NMFS also typically identifies the zone between the
180/190 dB isopleths and the 160 dB threshold where harassment in the
form of behavioral disturbance may occur. Furie's IHA application
refers to this area as the ``safety zone;'' however, to avoid confusion
with other actions where ``safety zone'' has meant the area above 180/
190 dB, NMFS will use the term ``disturbance zone.''
The proposed survey would use airgun sources composed of two 2400
in\3\ airguns, a single 440 in\3\ to 1800 in\3\ airgun, and a single 10
in\3\ airgun. Safety and disturbance radii for the sound levels
produced by the planned airgun configurations and pinger have been
estimated (see Table 4) and would be used for mitigation purposes (see
description of measures below) during the seismic survey activities.
However, Furie plans on conducting a sound source verification study
for this project prior to the start of the seimic survey, which will be
used to modify the distances to the actual isopleths, if necessary.
Table 4--Preliminary Distances to Safety and Disturbance Zone Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinger.............................. 1 m..................... 3 m.................... 25 m.
10 in\3\ Airgun..................... 10 m.................... 10 m................... 280 m.
440 in\3\ Airgun.................... 100 m................... 310 m.................. 2.5 km.
2400 in\3\ Airgun................... 380 m................... 1.4 km................. 9.5 km.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the required mitigation associated with the safety
and disturbance zones (which are described below), pursuant to Alaska
Department of Fish and Game restrictions, there would be a 1.6 km
setback of sound source points from the mouths of any anadromous
streams.
Furie also plans to use dedicated vessels to deploy and retrieve
the receiving and recording system. Sounds produced by the vessels are
not expected to exceed ambient sound levels in Cook Inlet. Therefore,
mitigation related to acoustic impacts from vessels is not expected to
be necessary.
(3) Speed and Course Alterations
If a marine mammal is detected outside the applicable 160 dB
disturbance zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is
likely to enter the disturbance zone, changes of the vessel's speed
and/or direct course would be considered if this does not compromise
operational safety to increase the distance between the observed marine
mammal and the disturbance zone. For marine seismic surveys using large
arrays, course alterations are not typically possible. However, for the
smaller air gun arrays planned during the proposed site surveys, such
changes may be possible. After any such speed and/or course alteration
is begun, the marine mammal activities and movements relative to the
survey vessel would be closely monitored to ensure that the marine
mammal does not approach within the disturbance zone. If the mammal
appears likely to enter the disturbance zone, further mitigative
actions would be taken, including a power down or shut down of the
airgun(s).
(4) Power-Downs
A power-down for mitigation purposes is the immediate reduction in
the number of operating airguns such that the radii of the 190 dB rms,
180 dB rms, and 160 dB rms zones are decreased to the extent that an
observed marine mammal(s) are not in the applicable zone of the full
array. During a power-down, one air gun, typically the 10 in\3\,
continues firing. Operation of the 10 in\3\ air gun decreases the radii
to 10 m, 10 m, and 280 m for the safety and disturbance zones,
respectively. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to
alert marine mammals to the presence of the survey vessel in the area.
The array would be immediately powered down whenever a marine
mammal is sighted approaching the 160 dB disturbance zone of the full
array. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the disturbance zone
when first detected, the airguns would be powered down immediately. If
a marine mammal is sighted within or about to enter the disturbance
zone of the single
[[Page 12169]]
mitigation airgun, it would be shut down (see following section).
Following a power-down, operation of the full airgun array would
not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the disturbance zone.
The animal would be considered to have cleared the disturbance zone if
it:
Is visually observed to have left the disturbance zone of
the full array, or
Has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case
of pinnipeds or small odontocetes, or
Has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case
of large odontocetes and mysticetes.
(5) Shut-Downs
The operating airgun(s) would be shut down completely if a marine
mammal approaches or enters the safety radius and a power-down is not
practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB
rms, as appropriate. In most cases, this means that the full array,
including the mitigation airgun would be shut down completely if a
marine mammal approaches or enters the estimated safety radius around
the single 10 in\3\ air gun while it is operating during a power down.
Airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared
the safety radius. The animal would be considered to have cleared the
safety radius as described above under power down procedures.
(6) Ramp-Ups
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, at a rate of 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 shut down will not begin until there has
been a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the 160 dB disturbance
zone by PSOs to assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire
zone must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If
the entire zone is not visible, then ramp-up from a cold start cannot
begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the 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) and mysticetes (gray whales).
(7) Shut-Downs for Aggregations of Marine Mammals and Beluga Cow-Calf
Pairs
The following additional protective measures for beluga whale cow-
calf pairs and aggregations of marine mammals are proposed. Whenever an
aggregation of beluga whales, killer whales, harbor porpoises, gray
whales, or Steller sea lions (four or more whales of any age/sex
class), or beluga whale cow-calf pairs are observed approaching the
160-dB disturbance 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 disturbance zone of seismic surveying
operations.
Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS
Furthermore, NMFS proposes the following measures be included in
the IHA, if issued:
(1) All vessels should reduce speed when within 300 yards (274 m)
of whales, and those vessels capable of steering around such groups
should do so. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
(2) Avoid multiple changes in direction and speed when within 300
yards (274 m) of whales; and
(3) When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops,
support vessels must adjust speed (increase or decrease) and direction
accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to whales.
Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Proposed
NMFS considered whether time/area restrictions were warranted. NMFS
has preliminary determined that such restrictions are not necessary or
practicable here. Beluga whales remain in Cook Inlet year-round, but
demonstrate seasonal movement within the Inlet; in the summer and fall,
they concentrate in upper Cook Inlet's rivers and bays, but tend to
disperse offshore and move to mid-Inlet in winter (Hobbs et al., 2005).
The available information indicates that in the winter months belugas
are dispersed in deeper waters in mid-Inlet past Kalgin Island, with
occasional forays into the upper inlet, including the upper ends of
Knik and Turnagain Arms. Their winter distribution does not appear to
be associated with river mouths, as it is during the warmer months. The
spatial dispersal and diversity of winter prey are likely to influence
the wider beluga winter range throughout the mid-Inlet. Furie expects
to mobilize crews and equipment for its seismic survey in May 2014,
which would coincide with the time of year when belugas are located in
the upper Inlet. In the spring, beluga whales are regularly sighted in
Knik Arm, which is located in the upper Inlet, beginning in late April
or early May, coinciding with eulachon runs in the Susitna River and
Twenty Mile River in Turnagain Arm, and well outside of the area where
Furie would be conducting seismic surveys. Therefore, NMFS believes
that the timing and location of the seismic survey, as proposed, will
avoid areas and seasons that overlap with important beluga whale
behavioral patterns.
NMFS also considered whether to require time area restrictions for
areas identified as home ranges during August through March for 14
satellite-tracked beluga whales in Hobbs et al., 2005. NMFS has
preliminarily determined not to require time/area restrictions for
these areas within the proposed survey area. The areas in question are
relatively large throughout which belugas are dispersed. In addition,
data for 14 tracked belugas does not establish that belugas will not
appear in other areas--particularly during the periods of the year when
belugas are more dispersed in Cook Inlet. Time/area restrictions for
these areas thus would not yield a material benefit for the species.
Such restrictions also are not practicable given the applicant's need
to survey the areas in question and the need for operational
flexibility given weather conditions, real-time adjustment of
operations to avoid marine mammals and other factors.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant'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:
[[Page 12170]]
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measure is 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.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered, NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting
the least practicable impact on marine mammal 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.
Monitoring Measures Proposed in Furie's IHA Application
The monitoring plan proposed by Apache can be found in section 1.4
of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based
on comments or new information received from the public during the
public comment period. A summary of the primary components of the plan
follows.
(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.''
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. Furie currently plans to have PSOs aboard up to four
vessels: the two source vessels and two support vessels. Two PSOs would
be on the source vessels and two PSOs would be on the support vessel to
observe the safety, power down, and shut down areas. When marine
mammals are about to enter or are sighted within designated disturbance
(i.e., 160 dB) 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. 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:
(A) 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;
(B) Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, ice
cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
(C) 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, Furie proposes to utilize a
shore-based station to visually monitor for marine mammals when the
disturbance radius includes the intertidal area within one mile from
shore. 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
air gun 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.
(3) Aerial-Based Monitoring
When survey operations occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) a river mouth,
Furie would conduct aerial surveys utilizing either a helicopter or
fixed-wing aircraft prior to the commencement of airgun operations in
order to identify locations where beluga whales congregate. The
aircraft may also be used at other times, when practicable. 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
[[Page 12171]]
under the April 2012 IHA, NMFS believes that the foregoing monitoring
measures will allow Furie to identify animals nearing or entering the
160 db zone with a reasonably high degree of effectiveness.
Reporting Measures
(1) Field Reports
During the proposed survey program, the PSOs would prepare a report
each day or at such other interval as the IHA (if issued), or Furie may
require, summarizing the recent results of the monitoring program. The
field reports would summarize the species and numbers of marine mammals
sighted. These reports would be provided to NMFS and to the survey
operators on a weekly basis. At the end of each month, a summary of the
weekly reports would be submitted to NMFS.
(2) Technical Report
The results of Furie's 2014 monitoring program, including estimates
of ``take'' by harassment (based on presence in the 160 dB harassment
zone), would be presented in the ``90-day'' and Final Technical
reports. The Technical Report would include:
(a) 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);
(b) analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare);
(c) 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;
(d) 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:
Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state;
Closest point of approach versus survey activity state;
Observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey
activity state;
Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey
activity state;
Distribution around the source vessels versus survey
activity state; and
Estimates of take by harassment based on presence in the
160 dB disturbance zone.
(3) Comprehensive Report
Following the survey season, a comprehensive report describing the
vessel-based, shore-based, aerial-based, and acoustic monitoring
programs would be prepared. The comprehensive report would describe the
methods, results, conclusions and limitations of each of the individual
data sets in detail. The report would also integrate (to the extent
possible) the studies into a broad based assessment of industry
activities, and other activities that occur in Cook Inlet, and their
impacts on marine mammals. The report would help to establish long-term
data sets that can assist with the evaluation of changes in the Cook
Inlet ecosystem. The report would attempt to provide a regional
synthesis of available data on industry activity in this part of Alaska
that may influence marine mammal density, distribution and behavior.
(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),
Furie 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 Furie to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Furie would not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that Furie 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),
Furie 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 Furie to determine whether modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that Furie 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. Furie would provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Exposure Analysis and Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
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
[[Page 12172]]
seismic survey; no take is expected to result from vessel strikes.
Furie requests authorization to take six marine mammal species by
Level B harassment. These six marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet
beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas); killer whale (Orcinus orca);
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus); harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi), and Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus).
The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals was described
in detail in the ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on
Marine Mammals'' section found earlier in this document. The potential
effects of sound from the proposed seismic survey might include one or
more of the following: Tolerance; masking of natural sounds; behavioral
disturbance; non-auditory physical effects; and, at least in theory,
temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson et al., 1995).
The most common and likely impact would be from behavioral disturbance,
including avoidance of the ensonified area or changes in speed,
direction, and/or diving profile of the animal. Hearing impairment (TTS
and PTS) are highly unlikely to occur based on the proposed mitigation
and monitoring measures that would preclude marine mammals being
exposed to noise levels high enough to cause hearing impairment.
For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the
seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth
to indicate the onset of Level B harassment. To estimate potential
exposure of marine mammals to sound generated during seismic survey
operations, Furie used the 160-dB isopleths measured by Apache in 2012
and then overlaid those isopleth areas with the density of marine
mammals in the total area ensonified within those isopleths over the
time of the surveys. Furie provided a full description of the
methodology used to estimate takes by harassment in its IHA application
(see ADDRESSES), which is also provided in the following sections. NMFS
reviewed and used Furie's exposure analysis and take estimates in our
analyses.
Basis for Estimating Exposure to Sound Levels at or Exceeding 160 dB
As stated previously, NMFS considers exposure to impulsive sounds
at a received level of 160 dBrms re 1[mu]Pa or above to be
Level B harassment. 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. The following series of
calculations and assumptions were applied to estimate potential Level B
harassment in this application:
(1) The expected density of each marine mammal species in the
project area is estimated using the best available data.
(2) The total estimated number of marine mammals that could
potentially (without the implementation of mitigation measures) be
exposed to pulsed sound levels at or exceeding 160 dBrms re
1[mu]Pa, is calculated by multiplying the density of the marine mammals
expected to be present by the area that would be ensonified to 160 dB
or above. The area predicted to be ensonified to >=160 dB is presented
below in Table 5 for each priority area under two proposed scenarios
identified by different contractors:
Table 5--Monthy Area Predicted to by Ensonified to >=160 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Ensonified to >=160
dB (km\2\)
Priority area -------------------------
Proposal A Proposal B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Area 1............................... 890 905
Priority Area 2............................... 880 885
Priority Area 3a.............................. 775 865
Priority Area 3b.............................. 1050 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furie has indicated that Priority Area 1 is the highest priority area
for seismic survey operations in 2014.
(3) The estimated numbers of marine mammals that may be taken by
Level B harassment are derived by modifying the number of calculated
exposures above 160 dB based on the data and information regarding
site-specific observations of marine mammals and the effects of the
proposed mitigation measures. Specifically, the following two factors
are expected to lower the number of animals that are actually exposed
above 160 dB and taken: (1) The coordination of timing and location of
the proposed seismic survey to avoid areas where marine mammals
(particularly Cook Inlet beluga whales) concentrate at certain times of
the year; and (2) power-down and shut-down procedures that would
suspend airgun operations when marine mammals are observed in or about
to enter the 160 dB zone. Of note, as described above in the mitigation
section, Furie would be utilizing more protective power-down/shut-down
procedures than are typically employed during seismic survey
operations. In addition to the regular shut-down for the safety zone,
Furie would be implementing power-downs in the disturbance zone for all
marine mammals and special aggregation/cow-calf shut-downs in
disturbance zone.
The following subsections describe the estimated densities of
marine mammals that may occur in the areas where activities are
planned, and areas of water that may be ensonified by pulsed sounds to
>=160 dB. The densities presented here are likely to be higher than
those expected in the project area because the population surveys
target areas where marine mammals are concentrated (e.g., haulout
areas, feeding grounds), which are outside of the proposed survey site,
and, therefore, over-estimate the densities that would be found in the
open waters of upper Cook Inlet, which is where the survey will take
place. According to Furie's IHA application, a survey crew will collect
seismic data 10-12 hours per day over approximately 4 months (120
days). Furie has identified four ``priority areas'' for surveying with
each requiring about 30 days to complete. It is important to note that
environmental conditions (such as ice, wind, and fog) will play a
significant role in the actual number of operating days; therefore,
these estimates are conservative in order to provide a basis for the
probability of encountering these marine mammal species in the action
area. The timing and location of the survey for each priority area can
be adjusted to avoid anticipated locations of higher concentrations of
beluga whales during each month.
Beluga Whales
Annual surveys of the Cook Inlet beluga whale provide total
population estimates, but because the whales are not typically
distributed across the entire survey area, the data do not allow for
the direct calculation of density across their entire range.
Assumptions are necessary to estimate density for the proposed seismic
survey project area.
A population estimate is developed annually for Cook Inlet beluga
whales through aerial surveys that cover approximately 30 percent of
the Cook Inlet surface area using the methods described by Hobbs et al.
(2000) (Rugh et al., 2000; Rugh et al., 2005). During early June, three
to seven surveys of upper Cook Inlet and one survey of lower Cook Inlet
are conducted. During each aerial survey, the entire coastline to
approximately 3 km offshore and all river mouths are surveyed.
Transects across the Inlet are flown as well. The daily counts during
the annual aerial survey are corrected for perception bias, which is
the possibility of not seeing or counting a visible whale, as well as
for availability bias, which is the inverse of the probability that a
typical beluga is at or will appear at the surface during the survey.
The population estimate for
[[Page 12173]]
the Cook Inlet beluga whales was 312 individuals for 2012 (Shelden et
al., 2012). Based on the coefficient of variation, Shelden et al.
(2012) reported a minimum Cook Inlet beluga population estimate of 280
and an upper confidence limit of 402 individuals in 2012.
During May and for most of the summer, beluga whales are
concentrated in the upper Cook Inlet near river mouths in Turnagain
Arm, Knik Arm, Chickaloon Bay and the Susitna Delta (Rugh et al., 2005;
Hobbs et al., 2005). The majority of the total population was observed
in these areas from approximately June through September. In most years
of the June aerial survey since the mid-1990s, beluga whales were not
observed south of the East and West Forelands, with the majority of the
population occurring in the Susitna Delta (Rugh et al., 2010). The
median daily count of beluga whales in mid Cook Inlet near the proposed
Furie project area was nine in 1993, one in 1994, and four in 1995.
There were no beluga whales counted in mid Cook Inlet near the proposed
Furie project area in any year from 1996 through 2011, until a group of
21 beluga whales was observed in Trading Bay in June of 2012 for the
first time since 1995 (Rugh et al., 2005; Shelden et al, 2012; NMFS
unpublished data). However, in August 2012, an aerial survey did not
observe any beluga in the Trading Bay area, or even south of the Beluga
River (Sims et al., 2012).
Due to the seasonal concentration of beluga whales in certain areas
of Cook Inlet, accurate densities cannot be calculated by assuming the
total population is spread evenly throughout the Inlet at all times of
the year; doing so would greatly overestimate the density of belugas
expected in most areas of the upper Cook Inlet from May through
November. Although the actual distribution of the Cook Inlet beluga
population during the proposed project period is unknown and inherently
varies over time, some studies and additional observations inform the
calculation of the best density estimates (see Section 4.1 of Furie's
IHA application for a more detailed discussion on seasonal distribution
of beluga whales in Cook Inlet).
The distribution of beluga whales varies over the course of the
summer and into the fall, depending largely on the timing of various
fish runs. Movements of 14 satellite-tagged beluga whales studied from
2000 to 2003 indicate that 95 percent of the range where belugas are
found from August through November varies from 982 km\2\ to 2,945 km\2\
(Hobbs et al., 2005; Figure A-7). Hobbs et al. (2005) did not predict
distributions for the months of May, June, or July; however, given that
the annual aerial surveys in June typically observe the population in
the Susitna Delta and Chickaloon Bay and that the population remains in
the Susitna Delta and moves into the Knik Arm around August, the
predicted distribution for the month of August is generally expected to
represent the distribution of beluga whales during June and July. Prey
species, specifically eulachon, arrive in upper Cook Inlet in April
with major spawning runs in the Susitna River beginning in May (NMFS,
2008a). The arrival of eulachon appears to draw Cook Inlet beluga
whales north around mid-April (NMFS, 2008a; Huntington, 2000) and thus
the distribution of beluga whales in May is assumed to be similar to
June, July, and August. Accordingly, the 95 percent probability range
area estimated for May, June, and July is assumed to be equal to the
area presented for August (982 km\2\).
The predicted densities set forth below are based on the reasonable
assumption that 95 percent of the total Cook Inlet beluga whale
population will be distributed within the 95 percent probability range
area for any given month (high concentration area) and that the
remaining 5 percent of the population will occur in other areas of the
upper Cook Inlet (low concentration area). Figures A-8 through A-23 of
Furie's IHA application show the high concentration areas (shaded red,
green and yellow per Hobbs et al., 2005) in relation to the proposed
project area. The density for the high and low concentration areas is
calculated by dividing 95 percent of the population estimate by the
area within the 95 percent range probability kernel of the given month,
and 5 percent of the population by the remaining area of upper Cook
Inlet (3840 km\2\ total), respectively. Table 6 presents the population
density estimate for the high and low concentration areas of upper Cook
Inlet based on the 2012 population estimate (312) and the 95 percent
probability range areas published by Hobbs et al. (2005).
Table 6--Predicted Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Densities Within and Outside of the 95% Probability Kernel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High
Area of 95% concentration Low concentration
Month probability area (number of area (number of
(km\2\) animals/km\2\) animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May/June/July/August................................... 982 0.3018 0.005458
July................................................... 982 0.3018 0.005458
August................................................. 982 0.3018 0.005458
September.............................................. 1605 0.1847 0.006980
October................................................ 2945 0.1006 0.01743
November............................................... 2013 0.1472 0.008539
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goetz et al. (2012a) re-analyzed the data reported in Hobbs et al.
(2005) and also predicted low numbers of belugas per km\2\ in the
vicinity of the proposed project area, with the greatest numbers
occurring along the coastline along Trading Bay and a shallow area
known as Middle Ground Shoal. The density of belugas in the 2012
modeling study was derived as the product of the probability of beluga
presence in a specific location and the expected number of individuals
when beluga whales are present, using aerial survey data from 1994 to
2008. Of these years, belugas were only observed near the proposed
project area in 1994 and 1995.
Additionally, site-specific observations support the findings
reported by Hobbs et al. (2005) and Goetz et al. (2012a). Individual
observers have reported sighting beluga whales ranging from 1 to 75
individuals (average 16.5) on 24 occasions from 2000 through 2010 in
the area south of Threemile Creek connecting to Point Possession and
north of East Forelands connecting to West Forelands (observations were
made from planes, vessels, shore, and oil platforms; NMFS unpublished
data). Only 13 of these sightings occurred in the months of June
through September, and no sightings were reported in May, October or
[[Page 12174]]
November. This average number of beluga whales (16.5) represents 5
percent of the average population abundance estimate (350) from the
same time period.
Marine mammal observations are available for the vicinity of the
proposed Furie project area as part of monitoring efforts for seismic
survey work conducted during May through September of 2012 (Apache,
2013). In 2012, Apache conducted a seismic survey in a 2,719 km\2\ area
extending from the McArthur River to the Beluga River. During the 2012
survey, Apache was required to monitor the area for the presence of
marine mammals and regularly submitted reports to NMFS containing
marine mammal observations. These observations were made as part of the
implementation of mitigation measures to avoid potential harassment and
injury to marine mammal species and not for the purpose of estimating
population abundance. However, this monitoring data from Apache's 2012
seismic program represents the best available site-specific
observational data (Table 7). Monitoring was conducted from land-based,
vessel-based, and aerial platforms. Belugas whales were most often
observed in coastal waters and in river mouths along the western side
of Cook Inlet, as far south as the McArthur River to as far north as
the Ivan River. Beluga whales were also commonly observed adjacent to
the shoreline near river mouths, which is consistent with other studies
conducted in the area (Rugh et al., 2000; Nemeth et al., 2007). Beluga
whale abundance in the vicinity of the 2012 survey decreased and moved
north (Beluga River to Susitna River) July through September, when
beluga whales are more commonly observed in the upper reaches of Cook
Inlet (e.g., Knik and Turnagain Arms; Hobbs et al., 2005). Dividing the
number of individuals visually recorded through vessel and land-based
observers per month by the number of sightings, the average group size
of beluga whales in May, June, July, and September was 6.9. No belugas
were observed by vessel and land-based observers in August.
Table 7--Beluga Whales Observed During 2012 Seismic Survey Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number
Month of individuals Number of Assumed average
observed sightings group size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May.................................................... 52 20 2.6
June................................................... 77 7 11
July................................................... 161 23 7
August................................................. 0 0 N/A
September.............................................. 35 5 7
Average................................................ ................. ................. 6.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 7 and 8 show two estimates of the number of individual Cook
Inlet beluga whales potentially exposed to sound levels at or above the
Level B harassment threshold each month over the course of the entire
2014 survey season. Table 17 presents the calculated number of
potential exposures for other marine mammal species.
In order to calculate the number of individual beluga whales
potentially exposed to sound at or above 160 dB, the following factors
were considered:
(1) The size of the ensonified area: The size of the ensonified
area varies for each priority area surveyed and varies with the
proposals submitted by the surveying contractors. Tables 8 and 9
present the predicted number of beluga exposures under Proposals A and
B, respectively. Proposal C is identical to Proposal A and, therefore,
is not presented in a separate table.
(2) The month during which work will take place in that area: The
month during which each priority area would be surveyed depends on the
available start date for work and the desire to avoid working in areas
where beluga whales would be present in higher concentrations. Figures
A-9 to A-24 in Furie's IHA application show work in each priority area
over four different months, August through November. The distribution
of beluga whales is presumed to be similar in May, June, and July to
that observed in August based on the best available data.
(3) The size of the ensonified area that overlaps predicted high
and low beluga concentration areas: The fact that there are more
belugas in some areas compared to others is relevant in different ways
depending on what type of data is used and how it is analyzed. The
difference comes down to accounting for the overall density of animals
and their distribution. Information about beluga distribution and
abundance is available in different formats. Some data (coarse-scale
distribution and density estimates) were used to estimate potential
exposures, but other types of information have more biological
relevance to the calculation of take.
The beluga whale densities used to calculate potential exposure are
based on models that provide density estimates on a monthly time scale
and assume an even distribution of individuals (per square kilometer)
throughout each of the predicted concentration areas (high and low
density). These density estimates are based on the best available data
and allow for an estimate of the total number of individuals in the
entire survey area; however, at a finer scale, they do not account for
the beluga whale's gregarious social behavior or habitat preferences.
Therefore, the exposure estimates only account for coarse-scale density
of the species (even distribution across the entire area) whereas
belugas are social animals that generally travel in groups within
relatively small portions of their habitat.
As mentioned above, the degree to which each ensonified area
overlaps high concentration areas for beluga whales varies from month
to month. For example, the entire ensonified area for Priority Area 1
(890 km\2\) in August is within the predicted low concentration area
for belugas. However, in October the ensonified area for Priority Area
1 overlaps the high concentration area by 240 km\2\. Therefore, the
predicted number of beluga whales exposed to sound at or exceeding 160
dB was calculated for each priority area for each month by multiplying
the ensonified area by the density of beluga whales in that area,
accounting for the degree of overlap with low and high beluga
concentration areas. (Table 8 for Proposal A and Table 9 for Proposal
B).
Using Priority Area 1 in August as an example, the predicted number
of beluga whales exposed to sound at or exceeding 160 dB is calculated
by multiplying the ensonified area (890 km\2\) by the density of
belugas in low concentration areas in August (0.005458 belugas per
km\2\) to equal 4.8 beluga whales (rounded to 5). For Priority Area 1
in October, the number of belugas was
[[Page 12175]]
calculated by first multiplying the ensonified area overlapping the red
``high concentration'' area (240 km\2\) by the density of beluga whales
in that area (0.1006 belugas per km\2\) resulting in 24.1 belugas
(rounded up to 25) and then by adding this number to the number
calculated for the remaining low concentration area ([890 km\2\-240
km\2\] x 0.01743 belugas per km\2\ = 11.3 rounded up to 12). The total
for Priority Area 1 in October is 37 beluga whales (Table 8). This
method is carried through for each priority area in each month.
Table 8--Predicted Number of Belugas Potentially Exposed to 160 dB (Proposal A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority area 1 Priority area 2 Priority area 3a Priority area 3b
Month (890 km\2\) (880 km\2\) (775 km\2\) (1,050 km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May............................. 5 42 5 6
June............................ 5 42 5 6
July............................ 5 42 5 6
August.......................... 5 42 5 6
September....................... 7 28 6 8
October......................... 37 37 36 76
November........................ 8 27 7 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same calculations were applied to the Proposal B survey area
using the methods described above (Table 9).
Table 9--Predicted Number of Belugas Potentially Exposed to 160 dB (Proposal B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority area 1 Priority area 2 Priority area 3a Priority area 3b
Month (905 km\2\) (885 km\2\) (865 km\2\) (1,000 km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May............................. 6 51 5 6
June............................ 6 51 5 6
July............................ 6 51 5 6
August.......................... 6 51 5 6
September....................... 7 33 7 7
October......................... 35 39 43 74
November........................ 10 30 8 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The timing of survey activities in various tracts can be adjusted,
to some extent, to avoid areas where beluga whales may be expected in
greater densities. The modeling data are fairly coarse and can be
expected to vary annually, but the best available anecdotal and
scientific knowledge shows that belugas would be concentrated in the
Susitna River delta, Turnagain Arm, and Knik Arm following the timing
of various fish runs. The number of potential exposures that could
occur depends upon the time frames during which Furie could accomplish
the proposed work and the priority of the area. Under Proposal A, the
proposed project dates would result in an exposure estimate of 58
beluga whales at the lower end of the range to 186 at the upper end of
the range. Furie has identified Priority Area 1 as the highest priority
area for conducting seismic survey operations.
To estimate takes, the fine-scale distribution of beluga whales
within discrete portions of their range was used rather than the
overall density of whales in the larger ``concentration area.'' The
fine-scale distribution makes it less likely that the total number of
individuals in given monthly ensonified area would fall within the
areas actually ensonified during the time that air guns are actually
fired. In addition, the implementation of mitigation measures when
animals are reported approaching the 160 dB disturbance zone is
expected to reduce the number of beluga whales actually exposed to
sound levels at or above 160 dB (i.e., make it lower than in the
exposure analysis described above). The estimated number of beluga
whales (and other marine mammals) that may be taken by Level B
harassment takes into account the exposure analysis, the effects of
implementing mitigation measures, and actual observer data from similar
operations (i.e., Apache's 2012 seismic survey). Recent implementation
of other mitigation measures in Cook Inlet--shut down of airguns if
animals approach or occur within the 180/190 dB zone--have been
effective in reducing harassment. Furthermore, qualified PSOs would
monitor the 160 dB isopleth zone around the source vessel prior to and
during all airgun operations. This monitoring would be used to detect
marine mammals approaching the 160 dB zone and implement power downs
and shut downs. Airguns would be shut down if groups of four or more
beluga whales or cow/calf pairs are observed approaching the 160 dB
zone. The monitoring reports submitted by Apache in 2012 suggest that
the proposed mitigation measures would be effective at reducing the
potential for beluga incidental takes. Between June and October,
Apache's PSOs reported no observed takes of beluga whales during
seismic survey operations, which included similar monitoring and less
conservative mitigation measures to those proposed by Furie. However,
due to the potential for observers missing whales because of the
conditions in Cook Inlet that make sighting marine mammals challenging
(i.e., the opacity of the water due to high turbidity) and low surface
profile of beluga whales, it is not realistic to assume that seismic
survey activities conducted over a period of months would consistently
result in zero takes; therefore, Furie has requested a small number of
beluga whale takes incidental to the proposed activity.
The requested takes are based on a consideration of the data from
Apache's monitoring program, the fine-scale distribution analysis of
beluga whales provided above, the implementation mitigation measures
before animals
[[Page 12176]]
reach the 160 dB threshold, and the available information on beluga
distribution and abundance, which estimates that up to two groups of
nine (18) beluga whales may be harassed incidental to Furie's seismic
survey operations. This group size is based on the average group size
reported from vessel and land-based platforms by Apache in 2012, which
is considered to be the best available information. In estimating
potential beluga group size, Furie considered all group size data
reported by Apache and based its group size estimate on data reported
in June, July, and August. Group sizes reported by Apache in May were
significantly smaller than those observed in June through August and
may not accurately reflect average beluga group size in Cook Inlet.
Harbor Porpoise
A population estimate for the harbor porpoise is available for the
Gulf of Alaska stock encompassing the area from Cape Suckling to Unimak
Pass, which includes Cook Inlet (Allen and Angliss, 2012). The most
current estimate of 31,046 individuals is based on a 1998 harbor
porpoise aerial survey of the Gulf of Alaska and the 1998 Cook Inlet
beluga whale aerial survey and was corrected for availability bias in
2010 (Hobbs and Waite, 2010). According to Hobbs and Waite (2010) the
survey area for the Gulf of Alaska stock was 158,733 km\2\, and the
estimated density was 0.196 porpoise per km\2\ across the Gulf of
Alaska area. Using data specific to Cook Inlet, the Cook Inlet harbor
porpoise density estimate can be calculated as 0.0389 porpoises per
km\2\ (Hobbs and Waite, 2010) (Table 10). Both of these estimates are
greater than the calculated Cook Inlet harbor porpoise density from
1991 aerial surveys (0.0072 porpoises per km\2\) (Dahlheim et al.,
2000). The 1991 estimate was not corrected for availability bias and
application of the same correction factor used in Hobbs and Waite
(2010) results in a density estimate of 0.0214 porpoises per km\2\. The
average density of harbor porpoise in Cook Inlet, combining the results
from the two Cook Inlet specific surveys, is 0.0302 porpoise per km\2\
(Table 10).
Table 10--Harbor Porpoise Densities Observed or Calculated From Cook Inlet Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Stock and survey year Population Area (km\2\) (number of
estimate animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook Inlet, 1998................................................ \1\737 18948 0.0389
Cook Inlet, 1991................................................ \2\402 18787 0.0214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Population estimate and area from Hobbs and Waite 2010.
\2\ Population estimate reported in Dahlheim et al. 2000 of 136 multiplied by 2.96 correction factor.
Harbor porpoise are documented during the annual aerial surveys for
beluga whales, but are generally not observed in the upper Cook Inlet.
The numbers of harbor porpoises observed in lower Cook Inlet in recent
surveys are reported in Table 11 (Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012).
The 2011 survey did not report sightings of marine mammals other than
beluga whales and is not included in this table. The observed number of
harbor porpoises is multiplied by a 2.96 correction factor and divided
by the area of the aerial survey each year to estimate harbor porpoise
densities.
Table 11--Harbor Porpoise Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed Density
Year number of Corrected Area (km\2\) (number of
porpoises numbers animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................ 86 254.56 5766 0.044
2010............................................ 10 29.6 6120 0.0048
2012............................................ 11 32.56 6219 0.0052
Average..................................... .............. .............. .............. 0.018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average of the calculated density from three recent aerial
surveys (0.018 porpoises per km\2\) and the two published harbor
porpoise densities for Cook Inlet (0.0389 and 0.0214 porpoises per
km\2\) is 0.0261 porpoises per km\2\. Using this average as an
approximation of Cook Inlet harbor porpoise density provides better
accounts for variability in the areas of Cook Inlet surveyed in each
study by considering the potential for bias due to some of the surveys
being for porpoise and some for belugas with incidental porpoise
sightings, and for inclusion of the most recent data than could be
accounted for by using only one of the calculated densities.
Marine mammal observations gathered by Apache during 2012 seismic
survey work reports the number of individuals visually recorded through
vessel and land-based observers (Table 12). Dividing the number of
individuals visually recorded by the number of sightings, the average
group size in May, June, July, August, and September was 1.37.
Table 12--Harbor Porpoises Observed During 2012 Seismic Survey Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number
Month of individuals Number of Assumed average
observed sightings group size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May................................................... 49 41 1.20
[[Page 12177]]
June.................................................. 81 53 1.52
July.................................................. 37 26 1.42
August................................................ 6 5 1.2
September............................................. 15 10 1.5
Average........................................... ................. ................. 1.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seals
Harbor seal population estimates are available for the Cook Inlet/
Shelikof stock (Allen and Angliss, 2012). The most current estimate of
22,900 individuals is based on a multi-year study of seasonal movements
and abundance of harbor seals in Cook Inlet conducted between 2004 and
2007 (Montgomery et al., 2007). The surveys were conducted only in the
lower Cook Inlet from the Forelands south to Cape Douglas. Actual
abundance in the survey area is not reported so presumed density cannot
be calculated from this information.
Harbor seals are observed during the annual aerial surveys for
beluga whales and are the only marine mammals other than belugas to be
routinely reported in the upper Cook Inlet. The number of harbor seals
observed in upper Cook Inlet in recent surveys are reported in Table 6-
6 (Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). The 2011 survey did not report
sightings of marine mammals other than beluga whales and is not
included in this table. The observed number of harbor seals is divided
by the area of the upper Cook Inlet surveyed each year to estimate
harbor seal densities. Harbor seals tend to concentrate and spend much
of their time in haulout areas in June when these surveys are
conducted. In contrast, harbor seals are not expected to be present at
these densities in open water, as they tend to travel in small groups
or as individuals when not hauled out. Accordingly, the densities
reported in Table 13 overestimate the actual densities that likely
occur in the proposed project area.
Table 13--Harbor Seal Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed number Density (number
Year of seals Area (km\2\) of animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009................................................... 387 2036 0.190
2010................................................... 543 2340 0.232
2012................................................... 937 1756 0.534
Average............................................ ................. ................. 0.319
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine mammal observations gathered by Apache during 2012 seismic
survey work reports the number of individual harbor seals visually
recorded through vessel and land-based observers (Table 14). Dividing
the number of individuals visually recorded by the number of sightings,
the average group size in May, June, July, August, and September was
1.17. This average group size supports the concept of harbor seals in
the open water traveling in small groups or as individuals, thus at a
lower density, through the project area.
Table 14--Harbor Seals Observed During 2012 Seismic Survey Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number
Month of individuals Number of Assumed average
observed sightings group size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May.................................................... 184 182 1.01
June................................................... 174 166 1.05
July................................................... 115 104 1.11
August................................................. 31 29 1.07
September.............................................. 64 39 1.64
Average............................................ ................. ................. 1.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Whale
Gray whale population estimates are available for the Eastern North
Pacific stock (Allen and Angliss, 2012). The most current population
estimate is 19,126 individuals, but most of the stock spends the summer
in the northern and western Bering and Chukchi seas. During the annual
aerial surveys for beluga whales, a total of seven individual gray
whales were observed from 1993 to 2004 in the lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et
al., 2005). More recently, aerial surveys report only one gray whale in
lower Cook Inlet and none in upper Cook Inlet in 2009, 2010, and 2012
(Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). During Apache's 2012 seismic survey
work in a similar area, at least one individual gray whale was observed
by protected species observers on four occasions in May, two times in
June, and again three times in July (Apache, 2013). In sum, gray whales
are rarely observed in Cook Inlet. For purposes of the analysis set
forth in this application, and based upon the recent observation by
Apache, this analysis assumes that two gray whales will potentially
occur in the project area.
[[Page 12178]]
Killer Whale
Killer whale population estimates are available for the Gulf of
Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock. The most
recent population estimate is 587 individuals for the entire stock with
136 in the Gulf of Alaska (Allen and Angliss, 2013). Estimates for the
Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock are 2,347 individuals with
751 of those in the Prince William Sound area (Allen and Angliss,
2013).
Most killer whale sightings are recorded in lower Cook Inlet and
the observed animals may be from any one of the stocks identified
above. The number of killer whales observed in Cook Inlet during recent
aerial surveys for beluga whales are reported in Table 15 below
(Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). The 2011 survey did not report
sightings of marine mammals other than beluga whales and is not
included in this table. The observed number of killer whales is divided
by the area of the aerial survey each year to estimate density. No
killer whales were observed by protected species observers during
Apache's seismic survey from May through September 2012 in a similar
project area (Apache, 2013).
Table 15--Killer Whale Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of killer Density (number
Year whales Area (km\2\) of animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009................................................... 0 5766 0
2010................................................... 33 6120 0.0054
2012................................................... 3 6219 0.00048
Average............................................ ................. ................. 0.00196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion
The population estimate available for the Western DPS of Steller
Sea Lions is 45,659 (Allen and Angliss, 2013) but the actual number of
sea lions that occur in Cook Inlet is unknown. During the annual aerial
surveys for beluga whales, a total of 560 individuals were observed in
42 sightings from 1993 to 2004 (Rugh et al., 2005). The sea lions are
considered to be undercounted in these surveys, however, because
researchers were mainly scanning the water and not shore areas. The
numbers of Steller Sea lions observed in Cook Inlet in recent surveys
are reported in Table 16 (Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). All sea
lions were observed in lower Cook Inlet. The observed number of sea
lions is divided by the area of the aerial survey each year to estimate
densities. The 2011 survey did not report sightings of marine mammals
other than beluga whales and is not included in this table. During
seismic survey work from May through September 2012 in a similar
project area, one individual Steller sea lion was observed in May, two
in June, and one in August (Apache, 2013).
Table 16--Steller Sea Lion Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Density
Year Steller Sea Area (km\2\) (number of
Lions animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................................ 39 5766 0.00676
2010............................................................ 1 6120 0.000163
2012............................................................ 65 6219 0.0105
Average......................................................... .............. .............. 0.00579
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For other marine mammals, the densities reported are not as
seasonally dependent as for belugas, so the predicted density of
animals is multiplied across the entire project area and is not
reported on a monthly basis (Table 17). The largest exposure area of
1,925 km2 was used to calculate for Proposal A.
The actual number of marine mammals that may be incidentally taken
will be much less than the number potentially exposed due to the
implementation of a suite of mitigation measures (Section 1.3 of
Furie's IHA application). Similar measures used by Apache in this area
resulted in 13 observed instances of harbor seals within the 160 dB
zone, four reports of harbor porpoises within the 160 dB zone and no
observed reports of any other marine mammals, including belugas, inside
the 160 dB zone during May through September 2012 (Apache, 2013). The
final estimates of the number of marine mammals (including beluga
whales) that may be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed
project, after mitigation measures and other information are taken into
account, are presented in Table 18.
Table 17--Estimated Number of Other Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to >=160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
density Ensonified Number of
Species (number of area (km\2\) individuals
animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Porpoise................................................. 0.0261 1925 51.
Harbor Seal..................................................... 0.319 1925 614.
Gray Whales..................................................... unknown 1925 assumed at 2.
Killer Whales................................................... 0.00196 1925 4.
Steller Sea Lions............................................... 0.00579 1925 12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12179]]
Proposed Incidental Takes
Cetaceans--Effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be
restricted to avoidance of an area around the seismic survey and short-
term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level
B harassment.''
Using the 160 dB criterion, the requested take numbers of
individual cetaceans exposed to sounds> 160 dBrms re 1
[mu]Pa represent varying proportions of the populations of each species
in Cook Inlet (Table 18). For Cook Inlet beluga whales, Furie requests
18 takes by Level B harassment. The proposal to power down air guns
when animals approach the 160 dB disturbance zone and shut down air
guns when aggregations of marine mammals or cow-calf pairs approach the
disturbance zone would substantially reduce the potential for takes
incidental to seismic survey activities. Therefore, the requested
number of takes is based on the assumption that the implementation of
mitigation and monitoring would significantly reduce the number of
takes to below the estimated exposures above 160 dB that were
calculated without consideration of mitigation, though not completely
eliminate, the potential for incidental harassment. In summary, the
number of beluga whale takes requested is based, in part, on the
average number of sightings and group size estimated over the course of
the seismic survey conducted by Apache in 2012, as well as the seasonal
distribution and habitat use of belugas in Cook Inlet, the assumption
that belugas would avoid approaching the area during survey activities,
and the effective implementation of mitigation measures. This number is
approximately 6 percent of the population of approximately 312 animals
(Shelden et al., 2012). For other cetaceans that might occur in the
vicinity of the seismic survey in Cook Inlet, the requested takes
represent an even smaller percentage of their respective populations.
The requested takes of 4 killer whales and 25 harbor porpoises
represent 0.7 percent and 0.08 percent of their respective populations
in the proposed action area. The requested takes of 2 gray whales
represents 0.01 percent of their population.
Pinnipeds--Two pinniped species may be encountered in the proposed
action area, but the harbor seal is likely to be the more abundant
species in this area. The number of takes requested for individuals
exposed to sounds at received levels> 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa
during the proposed seismic survey are as follows: harbor seals (160)
and Steller sea lions (12). These numbers represent 0.7 percent and
0.02 percent of their respective populations in the proposed action
area.
Table 18--Requested Number of Takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Species Requested Population Percent of
Takes Abundance Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whales................................................... 18 312 5.8
Harbor seals.................................................... 160 22,900 0.7
Harbor porpoises................................................ 25 31,783 0.08
Gray whales..................................................... 2 19,126 0.01
Killer whales................................................... 4 2,934 0.1
Steller sea lions............................................... 12 45,659 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact
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.'' In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers
a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) the number of
anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated
injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B
harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.
Given the required mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries
or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Furie'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 small number of takes that are anticipated are expected to be
limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment. Although it is
possible that some marine mammals individuals may be exposed to sounds
from seismic survey activities more than once, the duration of these
multi-exposures is expected to be low since both the animals and the
survey vessels will be moving constantly in and out of the survey area
and the seismic airguns do not operate continuously all day, but for a
few hours at a time totaling about 12 hours a day.
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 6-12 mi (10-20 km) 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. Accordingly, NMFS does
not find this data determinative here. 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
proposed survey area during the survey period and few will likely be
affected by the survey activity in a manner that would be considered
behavioral harassment. In addition, due to the constant moving of the
survey vessel, the duration of the noise exposure by cetaceans to
seismic impulse would be brief. For the same reason, it is unlikely
that any individual animal would be exposed to high received levels
multiple times.
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 very
small portion of
[[Page 12180]]
marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas
within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions.
In addition, although the area where the survey will take place is
within designated beluga whale critical habitat, beluga whales do not
appear to congregate in the area for important life functions such as
feeding, calving, or nursing.
Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed
to sound levels sufficient to cause Level B harassment are low
percentages of the population sizes in Cook Inlet, as shown in Table
18.
Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated
marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, and shut downs or power downs
when marine mammals are seen within or approaching the 160 dB zone 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 the seismic
survey is not anticipated to have an effect on annual rates or
recruitment or survival, and therefore will have a negligible impact on
affected cetacean species.
Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed
marine surveys more than once during the time frame of the project.
However, as discussed previously, due to the constant moving of the
survey vessel, the probability of an individual pinniped being exposed
to sound multiple times is much lower than if the source is stationary.
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 very 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 pinnipeds haulout.
The closest known haulout site is located on Kalgin Island, which is
about 22 km from the McArther River. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by the
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet is not expected to result in more
than Level B harassment and will have no effect on annual rates of
recruitment or survival, and therefore is anticipated to have no more
than a negligible impact on the affected species.
Small Numbers
The requested takes proposed to be authorized represent 5.8 percent
of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 312 animals
(Shelden et al., 2012), 0.1 percent of the combined Alaska resident
stock and Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering Sea stock of
killer whales (2,347 residents and 587 transients), 0.01 percent of the
Eastern North Pacific stock of approximately 19,126 gray whales, and
0.08 percent of the combined Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet stocks of
approximately 31,783 harbor porpoises. The take requests presented for
harbor seals represent 0.7 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of
approximately 22,900 animals. The requested takes proposed for Steller
sea lions represent 0.02 percent of the western stock of approximately
45,659 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. In each case, the numbers of marine
mammals taken is small relative to the affected species or stocks.
Conclusion
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 the total taking from Furie's
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet will have a negligible impact on
the affected species or stocks. NMFS also preliminarily finds that
small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the
populations of the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for
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 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). However, due to dramatic declines in
the Cook Inlet beluga whale population, on May 21, 1999, legislation
was passed to temporarily prohibit (until October 1, 2000) the taking
of Cook Inlet belugas under the subsistence harvest exemption in
section 101(b) of the MMPA without a cooperative agreement between NMFS
and the affected Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs) (Public Law No.
106-31, section 3022, 113 Stat. 57,100).. That prohibition was extended
indefinitely on December 21, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-553, section 1(a)(2),
114 Stat. 2762). NMFS subsequently entered into six annual co-
management agreements (2000-2003, 2005-2006) with the Cook Inlet Marine
Mammal Council, an ANO representing Cook Inlet beluga hunters, which
allowed for the harvest of 1-2 belugas. 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.
There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in
Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives
who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of
the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna River.
Furie concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the size of the affected
area, mitigation measures, and input from the consultations Alaska
Natives should result in the proposed action having no
[[Page 12181]]
effect on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.
Furie 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.
Prior to the publication of the proposed IHA, NMFS contacted the
local Native Villages to inform them of the upcoming availability of
the Federal Register notice and the opening of the public comment
period.
NMFS anticipates that any effects from Furie'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. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed regulations will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal stocks for
subsistence uses.
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 Steller sea lion. In addition, the
proposed action would occur within designated critical habitat for the
Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has
begun consultation with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources
Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to Furie
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation
will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment, pursuant
to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a
significant effect on 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
authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to Furie's seismic
survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
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). The language contained in the draft IHA is not intended for
codification and would not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations, if issued.
1. This Authorization is valid from May 1, 2014, through April 30,
2015.
2. This Authorization is valid only for Furie's activities
associated with seismic survey operations that shall occur within the
areas between Tyonek and the Forelands as denoted in Figure A-2 of
Furie's IHA 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: 18 beluga whales; 25 harbor porpoise; and 4 killer
whales.
ii. Mysticetes: 2 gray whales.
iii. Pinnipeds: 160 harbor seals and 12 Steller sea lions.
iv. If any marine mammal species are encountered during seismic
activities that are not listed in conditions 3.a.i., ii., or iii. 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, Furie 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. A 1,800 in\3\airgun arrays;
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 Observers (PSOs) (except during meal times and
restroom breaks, when at least one PSO 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 PSOs will be on each source vessel, and two PSOs will be on
the support vessel to observe the safety and disturbance zones. PSVOs
shall have access to reticle binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), big-eye
binoculars (25xI50), and night vision devices. PSO shifts shall last no
longer than 4 hours at a time. PSOs 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, Furie's vessel crew may also
assist in detecting marine mammals.
b. In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, utilize a shore-based
station to visually monitor for marine mammals.
[[Page 12182]]
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. Surveys are to be flown even if the airguns are not being
fired. If weather or safety conditions prevent Furie from conducting
aerial surveys, seismic survey operations may proceed subject to the
terms and conditions of the IHA.
i. When survey operations occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a river
mouth, Furie shall conduct aerial surveys to identify large
congregations of beluga whales and harbor seal haul-outs.
ii. 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.
iii. 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
mammals from head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft
over the marine mammal(s).
d. PSOs 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) ``safety zone'' 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) safety zone before a single airgun (10
in\3\) is in operation, respectively. Prior to the commencement of
survey activities, a sound source verification will be conducted to
determine site-specific sound attenuation and confirm the appropriate
180 and 190 dB safety zones, and 160 dB disturbance zones.
g. Visually observe the entire extent of the safety zone (180 dB re
1 [micro]Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] for
pinnipeds) using NMFS-qualified PSOs, for at least 30 minutes (min)
prior to starting the airgun array (day or night). If the PSO finds a
marine mammal within the safety zone, Furie must delay the seismic
survey until the marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSO sees a
marine mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSO
shall wait 30 min. If the PSO sees no marine mammals during that time,
they should assume that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. 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 safety zone, 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 PSOs shall
monitor the safety zone, 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 PSOs be able to visually observe the full safety zone
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 safety zone. If speed or course alteration is not
safe or practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still
appears likely to enter the safety zone, 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 safety zone. 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 safety zone 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 safety zone, the sound sources must then be
completely shut down. Seismic survey activity shall not resume until
the PSO has visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the safety
zone and is not likely to return, or has not been seen within the
safety zone 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
and mysticetes).
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 safety zones can be effectively monitored visually (i.e.,
PSO(s) must be able to see the extent of the entire relevant safety
zone).
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 any marine mammal is visually sighted approaching or within
the 160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the
sound source(s) shall be powered down in accordance with the Condition
7.j. until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone.
p. Whenever aggregations or groups of marine mammals (beluga
whales, killer whales, gray whales, harbor porpoises, and Steller sea
lion) or beluga cow/calf pairs 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 marine mammals shall
consist of four or more individuals of any age/sex class.
[[Page 12183]]
q. Furie 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 [micro]Pa (rms)
and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]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 [micro]Pa (rms)
and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific
behaviors those individuals exhibited.
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 Furie 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. Furie must immediately report to NMFS if 18 belugas are detected
within the 160 dB re 1 [micro]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), Furie 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 Furie to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Furie may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
b. In the event that Furie 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),
Furie 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 Furie to determine whether modifications
in the activities are appropriate.
c. In the event that Furie 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), Furie shall
report
[[Page 12184]]
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. Furie 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. Furie 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.
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 Furie'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 Furie's request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: February 26, 2014.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04770 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P