[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14913-14940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06386]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD830
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Surveys 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 has received a request from SAExploration Inc. (SAE) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a proposed oil and
gas exploration seismic survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska between
April 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to SAE to
incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during
the specified activity.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April
20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation
[[Page 14914]]
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
[email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted to the Internet at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Young, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the application and supporting documents, as
well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be
obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please
call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The following associated documents are also available at the same
internet address: Application Packet, Marine Mammal Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan, draft Environmental Assessment.
We are also preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will
consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that
process. The EA will be posted at the NOAA Fisheries Incidental Take
internet site once it is finalized.
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.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].
Summary of Request
On October 28, 2014, we received a request from SAE for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to seismic surveys in
Cook Inlet, Alaska. After further correspondence and revisions by the
applicant, we determined that the application was adequate and complete
on January 12, 2015.
SAE proposes to conduct oil and gas exploration seismic surveys.
The proposed activity would occur between April 1, 2015 and December
31, 2015, for a period of 160 days. The following specific aspects of
the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine
mammals: Operation of seismic airguns in arrays of 440 in\3\ and 1,760
in\3\. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of beluga
whale, harbor porpoise, killer whale, harbor seal, and Steller sea lion
is anticipated to result from the specified activity.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
SAE plans to conduct 3D seismic surveys over multiple years in the
marine waters of both upper and lower Cook Inlet. This proposed
authorization will cover activities occurring between April 1, 2015 and
March 31, 2016. The ultimate survey area is divided into two units
(upper and lower Cook Inlet). The total potential survey area is 3,934
square kilometers (1,519 square miles); however, only a portion
(currently unspecified) of this area will ultimately be surveyed, and
no more than 777 square kilometers (300 square miles) in a given year.
The exact location of where the 2015 survey will be conducted is not
known at this time, and probably will not be known until spring 2015
when SAE's clients have finalized their data acquisition needs.
The components of the project include laying recording sensors
(nodes) on the ocean floor, operating seismic source vessels towing
active air gun arrays, and retrieval of nodes. There will also be
additional boat activity associated with crew transfer, recording
support, and additional monitoring for marine mammals. The primary
seismic source for offshore recording consists of a 2 x 880-cubic-inch
tri-cluster array for a total of 1,760-cubic-inches (although a 440-
cubic-inch array may be used in very shallow water locations as
necessary). Each of the arrays will be deployed in a configuration
outlined in Appendix A of the application. The arrays will be centered
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) behind the source vessel stern, at a
depth of 4 meters (12 feet), and towed along predetermined source lines
at speeds between 7.4 and 9.3 kilometers per hour (4 and 5 knots). Two
vessels with full arrays will be operating simultaneously in an
alternating shot mode; one vessel shooting while the other is
recharging. Shot intervals are expected to be about 16 seconds for each
array resulting in an overall shot interval of 8 seconds considering
the two alternating arrays. Operations are expected to occur 24 hours a
day, with actual daily shooting to total about 12 hours. An acoustical
positioning (or pinger) system will be used to position and interpolate
the location of the nodes. A vessel-mounted transceiver calculates the
position of the nodes by measuring the range and bearing from the
transceiver to a small acoustic transponder fitted to every third node.
The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate the transponders, which
respond with short pulses that are used in measuring the range and
bearing. Several offshore vessels will be required to support
recording, shooting, and housing in the marine and transition zone
environments. Exact vessels to be used have not been determined.
[[Page 14915]]
Dates and Duration
The request for incidental harassment authorization is for the 2015
Cook Inlet open water season (April 1 to December 31). All associated
activities, including mobilization, survey activities, and
demobilization of survey and support crews, would occur between the
above dates. The plan is to conduct seismic surveys in the Upper Cook
unit sometime between April 1 and December 31. The northern border of
the seismic survey area depicted in Figure 1 takes into account the
restriction that no activity occur between April 15 to October 15 in
waters within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the Susitna Delta (defined as
the nearshore area between the mouths of the Beluga and the Little
Susitna rivers). A small wedge of the upper Cook unit falls within 16
kilometers of the Beluga River mouth, but survey here would occur after
October 15, taking into account any timing restrictions with nearshore
beluga habitat. The seismic acquisition in lower Cook unit would
initially begin in late August or mid-September, and run until December
15 taking into account any self-imposed location/timing restrictions to
avoid encounters with sea otters or Steller's eiders. The exact survey
dates in a given unit will depend on ice conditions, timing
restrictions, and other factors. If the upper Cook Inlet seismic
surveys are delayed by spring ice conditions, some survey may occur in
lower Cook Inlet from March to May to maximize use of the seismic
fleet. Actual data acquisition is expected to occur for only 2 to 3
hours at a time during each of the 3 to 4 daily slack tides. Thus, it
is expected that the air guns would operate an average of about 8 to 10
total hours per day. It is estimated that it will take 160 days to
complete both the upper and lower Cook units, and that no more than 777
square kilometers (300 square miles) of survey area will be shot in
2015.
Specified Geographic Region
The area of Cook Inlet that SAE plans to operate in has been
divided into two subsections: Upper and Lower Cook Inlet. Upper Cook
(2,126 square kilometers; 821 square miles) begins at the line
delineating Cook Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Critical
Habitat Area 1 and 2, south to a line approximately 10 kilometers (6
miles) south of both the West Foreland and East Foreland (Figure 1 in
SAE application).
Lower Cook (1,808 square kilometer; 698 square mile) begins east of
Kalgin Island and running along the east side of lower Cook Inlet to
Anchor Point (Figure 2 in SAE application).
Detailed Description of Activities
Survey Design
Marine seismic operations will be based on a ``recording patch'' or
similar approach. Patches are groups of six receiver lines and 32
source lines (Figure 3 in SAE application). Each receiver line has
submersible marine sensor nodes tethered (with non-kinking, non-
floating line) equidistant (50 meters; 165 feet) from each other along
the length of the line. Each node is a multicomponent system containing
three velocity sensors and a hydrophone (Figure 4 in SAE application).
Each receiver line is approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) in length,
and are spaced approximately 402 meters (1,320 feet) apart. Each
receiver patch is 19.4 square kilometers (7.5 square miles) in area.
The receiver patch is oriented such that the receiver lines run
parallel to the shoreline.
The 32 source lines, 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) long and spaced 502
meters (1,650 feet) apart, run perpendicular to the receiver lines (and
perpendicular to the coast) and, where possible, will extend
approximately 5 kilometers (3 miles) beyond the outside receiver lines
and approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) beyond each of the ends of
the receiver lines. The outside dimensions of the maximum shot area
during a patch shoot will be 12 kilometers by 16 kilometers (7.5 miles
by 10 miles), with an area of 192 square kilometers (754 square miles).
All shot areas will be wholly contained within the survey boxes
depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE's application. Shot intervals along
each source line will be 50 meters (165 feet).
It may take a period of three three to five days to deploy, shoot,
and record a single receiver patch. On average, approximately 49 square
kilometers (18.75 square miles) of patch will be shot daily. During
recording of one patch, nodes from the previously surveyed patch will
be retrieved, recharged, and data downloaded prior to redeployment of
the nodes to the next patch. As patches are recorded, receiver lines
are moved side to side or end to end to the next patch location so that
receiver lines have continuous coverage of the recording area.
Autonomous recording nodes lack cables but will be tethered together
using a thin rope for ease of retrieval. This non-floating, non-kinking
rope will lay on the seabed surface, as will the nodes, and will have
no effect on marine traffic. Primary vessel positioning will be
achieved using GPS with the antenna attached to the air gun array.
Pingers deployed from the node vessels will be used for positioning of
nodes. The geometry/patch could be modified as operations progress to
improve sampling and operational efficiency.
Acoustic Sources
Air guns are the acoustic sources of primary concern and will be
deployed from the seismic vessels. However, there are other noise
sources to be considered. These include the pingers and transponders
associated with locating receiver nodes, as well as propeller noise
from the vessel fleet.
Seismic Source Array
The primary seismic source for offshore recording consists of a 2 x
880-cubic-inch tri-cluster array for a total of 1,760-cubic-inches
(although a 440-cubic-inch array may be used in very shallow water
locations as necessary). Each of the arrays will be deployed in a
configuration outlined in Appendix A. The arrays will be centered
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) behind the source vessel stern, at a
depth of 4 meters (12 feet), and towed along predetermined source lines
at speeds between 7.4 and 9.3 kilometers per hour (4 and 5 knots). Two
vessels with full arrays will be operating simultaneously in an
alternating shot mode; one vessel shooting while the other is
recharging. Shot intervals are expected to be about 16 seconds for each
array resulting in an overall shot interval of 8 seconds considering
the two alternating arrays. Operations are expected to occur 24 hours a
day, with actual daily shooting to total about 12 hours.
Based on the manufacturer's specifications, the 1,760-cubic-inch
array has a peak-peak estimated sound source of 254.55 dB (decibels) re
1 micropascals ([mu]Pa) @ 1 m (53.5 bar-m; Far-field Signature,
Appendix A), with a root mean square (rms) sound source of 236.55 dB re
1 [mu]Pa. The manufacturer-provided source directivity plots for the
three possible air gun arrays are shown in Appendix A of the
application. They clearly indicate that the acoustical broadband energy
is concentrated along the vertical axis (focused downward), while there
is little energy focused horizontally. The spacing between air guns
results in offset arrival timing of the sound energy. These delays
``smear'' the sound signature as offset energy waves partially cancel
each other, which reduces the amplitude in the horizontal direction.
Thus, marine mammals near the surface and horizontal to the air gun
[[Page 14916]]
arrays would receive sound levels considerably less than a marine
mammal situated directly beneath the array, and likely at levels less
than predicted by the acoustical spreading model.
Air gun arrays typically produce most noise energy in the 10- to
120-hertz range, with some energy extending to 1 kilohertz (kHz)
(Richardson et al. 1995). This sound energy is within the hearing range
of all of the marine mammal species present in Cook Inlet, although
based on available audiograms, pinniped and, especially, odontocete
hearing is expected to be less sensitive in this range than mysticete
hearing (Au and Hastings 2008; Southall et al 2007). Richardson et al.
(1995) found little evidence of pinnipeds and odontocetes reacting to
seismic pulses, suggesting pinnipeds are tolerant to these types of
noise and odontocetes have difficulty hearing the low frequency energy.
It is assumed, however, that SAE's air gun pulses will be audible to
local pinnipeds and odontocetes given the high energy involved, but
would more likely elicit reaction from baleen whales, such as minke and
humpback whales, than the high frequency species.
Transceivers and Transponders
An acoustical positioning (or pinger) system will be used to
position and interpolate the location of the nodes. A vessel-mounted
transceiver calculates the position of the nodes by measuring the range
and bearing from the transceiver to a small acoustic transponder fitted
to every third node. The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate the
transponders, which respond with short pulses that are used in
measuring the range and bearing. The system provides a precise location
of every node as needed for accurate interpretation of the seismic
data. The transceiver to be used is the Sonardyne Scout USBL, while
transponders will be the Sonardyne TZ/OBC Type 7815-000-06. Because the
transceiver and transponder communicate via sonar, they produce
underwater sound levels. The Scout USBL transceiver has a transmission
source level of 197 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @ 1 m (rms) and operates at
frequencies between 35 and 55 kHz. The transponder produces short
pulses of 184 to 187 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) @ 1 m at frequencies also
between 35 and 55 kHz.
Both transceivers and transponders produce noise levels just above
or within the most sensitive hearing range of seals (75 Hz to 100 kHz;
(Hemil[auml] et al. 2006; Kastelein et al. 2009; Reichmuth et al. 2013)
and odontocetes (150 Hz to 180 kHz; Wartzok and Ketten 1999), and the
functional hearing range of baleen whales (7 Hz to 30 kHz; Southall et
al 2007). However, given the low acoustical output, the range where
acoustic-based harassment to marine mammals (for the 197 dB
transceiver) could occur extends about 100 meters (328 feet), or
significantly less than the output from the air gun arrays, and is not
loud enough to reach injury levels in marine mammals beyond 9 meters
(30 feet). Marine mammals are likely to respond to pinger systems
similar to air gun pulses, but only when very close (a few meters) to
the sources.
Vessels
SAE will be using a variety of vessels to conduct the seismic
survey and related activities. These include: Two source vessels, three
node equipment deployment and retrieval vessels, one mitigation and
housing vessel, one crew transport vessel, and two bow pickers.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Marine mammals most likely to be found in the upper Cook activity
area are the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena), and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). However, these
species are found there in low numbers, and generally only during the
summer fish runs (Nemeth et al. 2007, Boveng et al. 2012). These
species are also found in the Lower Cook survey area along with
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostra), gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), killer whales
(Orcinus orca), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and Steller sea
lions (Eumetopia jubatus). Minke whales have been considered migratory
in Alaska (Allen and Angliss, 2014) but have recently been observed off
Cape Starichkof and Anchor Point year-round (Owl Ridge, 2014). Humpback
and gray whales are seasonal in Lower Cook, while the remaining species
could be encountered at any time of the year. During marine mammal
monitoring conducted off Cape Starichkof between May and August 2013,
observers recorded small numbers of humpback whales, minke whales, gray
whales, killer whales, and Steller sea lions, and moderate numbers of
harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Owl Ridge, 2014). This survey also
recorded a single beluga observed 6 kilometers north of Cape Starichkof
in August 2013. The stock sizes for marine mammals found in the
proposed project area in Cook Inlet are shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Marine Mammals Inhabiting the Cook Inlet Action Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance Relative
ESA/MMPA status (CV, Nmin, most occurrence in Cook
Species Stock \1\; Strategic (Y/ recent abundance Inlet; season of
N) survey) \2\ occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale................. Central North E/D;Y.............. 7,469 Occasionally seen
Pacific. (0.095;5,833;2000 in Lower Inlet,
). summer.
Minke whale.................... Alaska............ --;N............... 1,233 (0.034;N/ Infrequently occur
A;2003). but reported year-
round.
Gray whale..................... Eastern North --; N.............. 19,126 (0.071; Rare migratory
Pacific. 18,017; 2007). visitor; late
winter.
Killer whale................... Alaska Resident... --;N............... 2,347 (N/A; 2,084; Occasionally
2009). sighted in Lower
Cook Inlet.
Alaska Transient.. --:N............... 345 (N/A; 303;
2003).
Beluga whale................... Cook Inlet........ E/D;Y.............. 312 (0.10; 280; Use upper Inlet in
2012). summer and lower
in winter:
annual.
Harbor porpoise................ Gulf of Alaska.... --;Y............... 31,046 (0.214; Widespread in the
25,987; 1998). Inlet: annual
(less in winter).
Dall's porpoise................ Alaska............ ................... .................. Infrequently found
in Lower Inlet.
Steller sea lion............... Western DPS....... E/D;Y.............. 79,300 (N/A; Primarily found in
45,659; 2012). lower Inlet.
[[Page 14917]]
Harbor seal.................... Cook Inlet/ --;N............... 22,900 (0.053; Frequently found
Shelikof. 21,896; 2006). in upper and
lower inlet;
annual (more in
northern Inlet in
summer).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Allen and Angliss (20142, 2013), Carretta et al. (2013), Zerbini et al. (2006).
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Although there is considerable distributional overlap in the
humpback whale stocks that use Alaska, the whales seasonally found in
lower Cook Inlet are probably of the Central North Pacific stock.
Listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this stock
has recently been estimated at 7,469, with the portion of the stock
that feeds in the Gulf of Alaska estimated at 2,845 animals (Allen and
Angliss 20143). The Central North Pacific stock winters in Hawaii and
summers from British Columbia to the Aleutian Islands (Calambokidis et
al. 1997), including Cook Inlet.
Humpback use of Cook Inlet is largely confined to lower Cook Inlet.
They have been regularly seen near Kachemak Bay during the summer
months (Rugh et al. 2005a), and there is a whale-watching venture in
Homer capitalizing on this seasonal event. There are anecdotal
observations of humpback whales as far north as Anchor Point, with
recent summer observations extending to Cape Starichkof (Owl Ridge
2014). Humpbacks might be encountered in the vicinity of Anchor Point
if seismic operations were to occur off the point during the summer.
However, SAE plans, for the most part, to limit seismic activity along
the Kenai Peninsula to during the spring and fall.
Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostra)
Minke whales are the smallest of the rorqual group of baleen whales
reaching lengths of up to 35 feet. They are also the most common of the
baleen whales, although there are no population estimates for the North
Pacific, although estimates have been made for some portions of Alaska.
Zerbini et al. (2006) estimated the coastal population between Kenai
Fjords and the Aleutian Islands at 1,233 animals.
During Cook Inlet-wide aerial surveys conducted from 1993 to 2004,
minke whales were encountered only twice (1998, 1999), both times off
Anchor Point 16 miles northwest of Homer. A minke whale was also
reported off Cape Starichkof in 2011 (A. Holmes, pers. comm.) and 2013
(E. Fernandez and C. Hesselbach, pers. comm.), suggesting this location
is regularly used by minke whales, including during the winter.
Recently, several minke whales were recorded off Cape Starichkof in
early summer 2013 during exploratory drilling conducted there (Owl
Ridge 2014). There are no records north of Cape Starichkof, and this
species is unlikely to be seen in upper Cook Inlet. There is a chance
of encountering this whale during seismic operations along the Kenai
Peninsula in lower Cook Inlet.
Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale migrates
8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) northward from breeding lagoons in Baja
California to feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi seas, reversing
their travel again in the fall (Rice and Wolman 1971). Their migration
route is for the most part coastal until they reach the feeding
grounds. A small portion of whales do not annually complete the full
circuit, as small numbers can be found in the summer feeding along the
Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coasts (Rice et al.
1984, Moore et al. 2007).
Human exploitation reduced this stock to an estimated ``few
thousand'' animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). However, by the late
1980s, the stock was appearing to reach carrying capacity and estimated
to be at 26,600 animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). By 2002, that stock
had been reduced to about 16,000 animals, especially following
unusually high mortality events in 1999 and 2000 (Allen and Angliss
2014). The stock has continued to grow since then and is currently
estimated at 19,126 animals with a minimum estimate of 18,017 (Carretta
et al. 2013).
Most gray whales migrate past the mouth of Cook Inlet to and from
northern feeding grounds. However, small numbers of summering gray
whales have been noted by fisherman near Kachemak Bay and north of
Anchor Point. Further, summering gray whales were seen offshore of Cape
Starichkof by marine mammal observers monitoring Buccaneer's
Cosmopolitan drilling program in 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014). Regardless,
gray whales are not expected to be encountered in upper Cook Inlet,
where there are no records, but might be encountered during seismic
operations along the Kenai Peninsula south of Ninilchik. However,
seismic surveys are not planned in this region during the summer months
when gray whales would be most expected.
Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)
The Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is a
small geographically isolated population that is separated from other
beluga populations by the Alaska Peninsula. The population is
genetically (mtDNA) distinct from other Alaska populations suggesting
the Peninsula is an effective barrier to genetic exchange (O'Corry-
Crowe et al. 1997) and that these whales may have been separated from
other stocks at least since the last ice age. Laidre et al. (2000)
examined data from more than 20 marine mammal surveys conducted in the
northern Gulf of Alaska and found that sightings of belugas outside
Cook Inlet were exceedingly rare, and these were composed of a few
stragglers from the Cook Inlet DPS observed at Kodiak Island, Prince
William Sound, and Yakutat Bay. Several marine mammal surveys specific
to Cook Inlet (Laidre et al. 2000, Speckman and Piatt 2000), including
those that concentrated on beluga whales (Rugh et al. 2000, 2005a),
clearly indicate that this stock largely confines itself to Cook Inlet.
There is no indication that these whales make forays into the Bering
Sea where they might intermix with other Alaskan stocks.
The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was originally estimated at 1,300 whales
in 1979 (Calkins 1989) and has been the focus of management concerns
since experiencing a dramatic decline in the 1990s. Between 1994 and
1998 the stock declined 47 percent which was attributed to
overharvesting by subsistence hunting. Subsistence hunting was
estimated to annually
[[Page 14918]]
remove 10 to 15 percent of the population during this period. Only five
belugas have been harvested since 1999, yet the population has
continued to decline, with the most recent estimate at only 312 animals
(Allen and Angliss 2014). NMFS listed the population as ``depleted'' in
2000 as a consequence of the decline, and as ``endangered'' under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008 when the population failed to
recover following a moratorium on subsistence harvest. In April 2011,
NMFS designated critical habitat for the beluga under the ESA (Figure
3).
Prior to the decline, this DPS was believed to range throughout
Cook Inlet and occasionally into Prince William Sound and Yakutat
(Nemeth et al. 2007). However the range has contracted coincident with
the population reduction (Speckman and Piatt 2000). During the summer
and fall beluga whales are concentrated near the Susitna River mouth,
Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon Bay (Nemeth et al. 2007) where
they feed on migrating eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) and salmon
(Onchorhyncus spp.) (Moore et al. 2000). Critical Habitat Area 1
reflects this summer distribution (Figure 3). During the winter, beluga
whales concentrate in deeper waters in the mid-inlet to Kalgin Island,
and in the shallow waters along the west shore of Cook Inlet to
Kamishak Bay (Critical Habitat Area 2; Figure 1). Some whales may also
winter in and near Kachemak Bay.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 14919]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20MR15.003
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
Harbor porpoise are small (1.5 meters length), relatively
inconspicuous toothed whales. The Gulf of Alaska Stock is distributed
from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass and was most recently estimated at
31,046 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). They are found primarily in
coastal waters less than 100 meters (100 meters) deep (Hobbs and Waite
2010) where they feed on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), other
schooling fishes, and cephalopods.
Although they have been frequently observed during aerial surveys
in Cook Inlet, most sightings are of single animals, and are
concentrated at Chinitna and Tuxedni bays on the west
[[Page 14920]]
side of lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a). Dahlheim et al. (2000)
estimated the 1991 Cook Inlet-wide population at only 136 animals.
However, they are one of the three marine mammals (besides belugas and
harbor seals) regularly seen in upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth et al. 2007),
especially during spring eulachon and summer salmon runs. Because
harbor porpoise have been observed throughout Cook Inlet during the
summer months, including mid-inlet waters, they could be encountered
during seismic operations in upper Cook Inlet.
Dall's Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)
Dall's porpoise are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific
Ocean including Alaska, although they are not found in upper Cook Inlet
and the shallower waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas
(Allen and Angliss 2014). Compared to harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise
prefer the deep offshore and shelf slope waters. The Alaskan population
has been estimated at 83,400 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), making
it one of the more common cetaceans in the state. Dall's porpoise have
been observed in lower Cook Inlet, including Kachemak Bay and near
Anchor Point (Owl Ridge 2014), but sightings there are rare. There is a
remote chance that Dall's porpoise might be encountered during seismic
operations along the Kenai Peninsula.
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
Two different stocks of killer whales inhabit the Cook Inlet region
of Alaska: the Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss 2014). The
resident stock is estimated at 2,347 animals and occurs from Southeast
Alaska to the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2014). Resident whales feed
exclusively on fish and are genetically distinct from transient whales
(Saulitis et al. 2000). The transient whales feed primarily on marine
mammals (Saulitis et al. 2000). The transient population inhabiting the
Gulf of Alaska shares mitochondrial DNA haplotypes with whales found
along the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea suggesting a common
stock, although there appears to be some subpopulation genetic
structuring occurring to suggest the gene flow between groups is
limited (see Allen and Angliss 2014). For the three regions combined,
the transient population has been estimated at 587 animals (Allen and
Angliss 2014).
Killer whales are occasionally observed in lower Cook Inlet,
especially near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden et al. 2003, Rugh et al.
2005a). A concentration of sightings near Homer and inside Kachemak Bay
may represent high use or may reflect high observer-effort, given most
records are from a whale-watching venture based in Homer. The few
whales that have been photographically identified in lower Cook Inlet
belong to resident groups more commonly found in nearby Kenai Fjords
and Prince William Sound (Shelden et al. 2003). Prior to the 1980s,
killer whale sightings in upper Cook Inlet were very rare. During
aerial surveys conducted between 1993 and 2004, killer whales were
observed on only three flights, all in the Kachemak and English Bay
area (Rugh et al. 2005a). However, anecdotal reports of killer whales
feeding on belugas in upper Cook Inlet began increasing in the 1990s,
possibly in response to declines in sea lion and harbor seal prey
elsewhere (Shelden et al. 2003). These sporadic ventures of transient
whales into beluga summering grounds have been implicated as a possible
contributor to decline of Cook Inlet belugas in the 1990s, although the
number of confirmed mortalities from killer whales is small (Shelden et
al. 2003). If killer whales were to venture into upper Cook Inlet in
2015, they might be encountered during both seismic operations in both
upper and lower Cook Inlet.
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopia jubatus)
The Western Stock of the Steller sea lion is defined as all
populations west of longitude 144[deg]W to the western end of the
Aleutian Islands. The most recent estimate for this stock is 45,649
animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), considerably less than that estimated
140,000 animals in the 1950s (Merrick et al. 1987). Because of this
dramatic decline, the stock was listed as threatened under ESA in 1990,
and was relisted as endangered in 1997. Critical habitat was designated
in 1993, and is defined as a 20-nautical-mile radius around all major
rookeries and haulout sites. The 20-nautical-mile buffer was
established based on telemetry data that indicated these sea lions
concentrated their summer foraging effort within this distance of
rookeries and haul outs.
Steller sea lions inhabit lower Cook Inlet, especially in the
vicinity of Shaw Island and Elizabeth Island (Nagahut Rocks) haulout
sites (Rugh et al. 2005a), but are rarely seen in upper Cook Inlet
(Nemeth et al. 2007). Of the 42 Steller sea lion groups recorded during
Cook Inlet aerial surveys between 1993 and 2004, none were recorded
north of Anchor Point and only one in the vicinity of Kachemak Bay
(Rugh et al. 2005a). Marine mammal observers associated with
Buccaneer's drilling project off Cape Starichkof did observe seven
Steller sea lions during the summer of 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014).
The upper reaches of Cook Inlet may not provide adequate foraging
conditions for sea lions for establishing a major haul out presence.
Steller sea lions feed largely on walleye pollock (Theragra
chalcogramma), salmon (Onchorhyncus spp.), and arrowtooth flounder
(Atheresthes stomias) during the summer, and walleye pollock and
Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) during the winter (Sinclair and
Zeppelin 2002), none which, except for salmon, are found in abundance
in upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth et al. 2007). Steller sea lions are
unlikely to be encountered during seismic operations in upper Cook
Inlet, but they could possibly be encountered along the Kenai
Peninsula, especially closer to Anchor Point.
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)
With more than 150,000 animals state-wide (Allen and Angliss 2014),
harbor seals are one of the more common marine mammal species in
Alaskan waters. They are most commonly seen hauled out at tidal flats
and rocky areas. Harbor seals feed largely on schooling fish such a
walleye pollock, Pacific cod, salmon, Pacific herring, eulachon, and
squid. Although harbor seals may make seasonal movements in response to
prey, they are resident to Alaska and do not migrate.
The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Stock, ranging from approximately Anchorage
down along the south side of the Alaska Peninsula to Unimak Pass, has
been recently estimated at a stable 22,900 (Allen and Angliss 2014).
Large numbers concentrate at the river mouths and embayments of lower
Cook Inlet, including the Fox River mouth in Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al.
2005a). Montgomery et al. (2007) recorded over 200 haulout sites in
lower Cook Inlet alone. However, only a few dozens to a couple hundred
seals seasonally occur in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a), mostly
at the mouth of the Susitna River where their numbers vary in concert
with the spring eulachon and summer salmon runs (Nemeth et al. 2007,
Boveng et al. 2012). In 2012, up to 100 harbor seals were observed
hauled out at the mouths of the Theodore and Lewis rivers during
monitoring activity associated with SAE's (with Apache) 2012 Cook Inlet
seismic program. Montgomery et al. (2007) also found seals elsewhere in
Cook Inlet to move in response to local steelhead (Onchorhynchus
mykiss) and salmon
[[Page 14921]]
runs. Harbor seals may be encountered during seismic operations in both
upper and lower Cook Inlet.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components (e.g., seismic airgun operations, vessel movement) of the
specified activity, including mitigation, may impact marine mammals.
The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this
document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how
this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment'' section, the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, and the
``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
Operating active acoustic sources, such as airgun arrays, has the
potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority of
anticipated impacts would be from the use of acoustic sources.
Acoustic Impacts
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data.
Southall et al. (2007) designated ``functional hearing groups'' for
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated below (note that animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range) and have
been modified slightly from Southall et al. 2007 to incorporate some
newer information:
Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and
30 kHz; (Ketten and Mountain 2009; Tubelli et al. 2012)
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; (Southall et al. 2007)
High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises,
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; (Southall et al. 2007)
Phocid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; (Hemil[auml] et al.
2006; Mulsow et al. 2011; Reichmuth et al. 2013) and
Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz. (Reichmuth
et al. 2013)
As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal
species (seven cetacean and two pinniped species) are likely to occur
in the proposed seismic survey area. Of the seven cetacean species
likely to occur in SAE's proposed project area, three classified as a
low-frequency cetaceans (humpback, minke, gray whale), two are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (beluga and killer whales), and
two are classified as a high-frequency cetaceans (Dall's and harbor
porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). Of the two pinniped species likely
to occur in SAE's proposed project area, one is classified as a phocid
(harbor seal), and one is classified as an otariid (Steller sea lion).
A species' functional hearing group is a consideration when we analyze
the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals
The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more
of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral
disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-
auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in previous
NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly
variable, often depending on species and contextual factors (based on
Richardson et al., 1995).
Tolerance: Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from air
guns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many
kilometers. Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at
distances more than a few kilometers from operating survey vessels
often show no apparent response. That is often true even in cases when
the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on
measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal
group. In general, pinnipeds and small odontocetes (toothed whales)
seem to be more tolerant of exposure to air gun pulses than baleen
whales. Although various toothed whales, and (less frequently)
pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under
some conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no
overt reactions. Weir (2008) observed marine mammal responses to
seismic pulses from a 24 airgun array firing a total volume of either
5,085 in\3\ or 3,147 in\3\ in Angolan waters between August 2004 and
May 2005. Weir recorded a total of 207 sightings of humpback whales (n
= 66), sperm whales (n = 124), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17)
and reported that there were no significant differences in encounter
rates (sightings/hr) for humpback and sperm whales according to the
airgun array's operational status (i.e., active versus silent).
Behavioral Disturbance: Marine mammals may behaviorally react to
sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions
are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number
of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping);
avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or
rookeries).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict. The consequences of behavioral
modification to individual fitness can range from none up to potential
changes to growth, survival, or reproduction, depending on the context,
duration, and degree of behavioral modification. Examples of behavioral
modifications that could impact growth, survival or reproduction
include: Drastic changes in diving/surfacing/swimming patterns that
lead to stranding (such as those associated with beaked whale
strandings related to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical
sonar); longer-term abandonment of habitat that is specifically
important for feeding, reproduction, or other critical needs, or
significant disruption of feeding or social interaction resulting in
substantive energetic costs, inhibited
[[Page 14922]]
breeding, or prolonged or permanent cow-calf separation.
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).
Toothed whales. Few systematic data are available describing
reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. However, systematic work
on sperm whales (Tyack et al., 2003) has yielded an increasing amount
of information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic
surveys based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al.,
2004; Moulton and Miller, 2005).
Seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see
dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays,
but, in general, there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to
show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun
systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic
vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel
even when large arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, there have
been indications that small toothed whales sometimes move away or
maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel when a large array
of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Gold, 1996a,b,c;
Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003). The beluga may be a species
that (at least in certain geographic areas) shows long-distance
avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic operations
in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of
beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic
vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga
sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting
that some belugas might have been avoiding the seismic operations at
distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) (Miller et al., 2005).
Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of more relevance in this project)
beluga whales exhibit changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed
sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys
(Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). However, the animals tolerated high
received levels of sound (pk-pk level >200 dB re 1 [mu]Pa) before
exhibiting aversive behaviors.
Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United
Kingdom from 1997--2000 have provided data on the occurrence and
behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone,
2003; Gordon et al., 2004). Killer whales were found to be
significantly farther from large airgun arrays during periods of
shooting compared with periods of no shooting. The displacement of the
median distance from the array was approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) or
more. Killer whales also appear to be more tolerant of seismic shooting
in deeper water.
Reactions of toothed whales to large arrays of airguns are variable
and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius
than has been observed for mysticetes. However, based on the limited
existing evidence, belugas should not necessarily generally be grouped
with delphinids in the ``less responsive'' category.
Pinnipeds. Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance
reaction to the airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from
seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by
pinnipeds and only slight (if any) changes in behavior. Monitoring work
in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 provided considerable
information regarding the behavior of Arctic ice seals exposed to
seismic pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002). These
seismic projects usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 airguns with total
volumes of 560 to 1,500 in\3\. The combined results suggest that some
seals avoid the immediate area around seismic vessels. In most survey
years, ringed seal sightings tended to be farther away from the seismic
vessel when the airguns were operating than when they were not (Moulton
and Lawson, 2002). However, these avoidance movements were relatively
small, on the order of 100 m (328 ft) to a few hundreds of meters, and
many seals remained within 100-200 m (328-656 ft) of the trackline as
the operating airgun array passed by. Seal sighting rates at the water
surface were lower during airgun array operations than during no-airgun
periods in each survey year except 1997. Similarly, seals are often
very tolerant of pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices (Mate and
Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995a).
However, initial telemetry work suggests that avoidance and other
behavioral reactions by two other species of seals, grey and harbor
seals, to small airgun sources may at times be stronger than evident to
date from visual studies of pinniped reactions to airguns (Thompson et
al., 1998). Even if reactions of the species occurring in the activity
area are as strong as those evident in the telemetry study, reactions
are expected to be confined to relatively small distances and
durations, with no long-term effects on pinniped individuals or
populations.
Masking: Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other
sounds, often at similar frequencies. Marine mammals use acoustic
signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but
include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging,
reproduction, avoiding predators, and learning about their environment
(Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). Masking, or auditory
interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment are
louder than, and of a similar frequency to, auditory signals an animal
is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals
trying to receive acoustic information about their environment,
including sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey,
and sounds that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking
these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals,
groups of animals, or entire populations.
Masking occurs when anthropogenic sounds and signals (that the
animal utilizes) overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the
airgun sound generated from the proposed seismic surveys, sound will
consist of low frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short
durations (less than one second). Lower frequency man-made sounds are
more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other
potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There
is little concern regarding masking near the sound source due to the
brief duration of these pulses and relatively longer silence between
air gun shots (approximately 12 seconds). However, at long distances
(over tens of kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and
reverberation, the durations of airgun pulses can be ``stretched'' to
seconds with long decays (Madsen et al., 2006), although the intensity
of the sound is greatly reduced.
This could affect communication signals used by low frequency
mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause
increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009);
however, no baleen whales are expected to occur within the proposed
action area. Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for
masking by adjusting their acoustic behavior by shifting call
frequencies,
[[Page 14923]]
and/or increasing call volume and vocalization rates. For example, blue
whales were 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 et al., 2000). Additionally, beluga whales have
been known to change their vocalizations in the presence of high
background noise possibly to avoid masking calls (Au et al., 1985;
Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). Although some degree of
masking is inevitable when high levels of manmade broadband sounds are
introduced into the sea, marine mammals have evolved systems and
behavior that function to reduce the impacts of masking. Structured
signals, such as the echolocation click sequences of small toothed
whales, may be readily detected even in the presence of strong
background noise because their frequency content and temporal features
usually differ strongly from those of the background noise (Au and
Moore, 1988, 1990). The components of background noise that are similar
in frequency to the sound signal in question primarily determine the
degree of masking of that signal.
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak
signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in
the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in
marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the
same direction. The sound localization abilities of marine mammals
suggest that, if signal and noise come from different directions,
masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies
might suggest (Richardson et al., 1995). The dominant background noise
may be highly directional if it comes from a particular anthropogenic
source such as a ship or industrial site. Directional hearing may
significantly reduce the masking effects of these sounds by improving
the effective signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of higher frequency
hearing by the bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and killer whale,
empirical evidence confirms that masking depends strongly on the
relative directions of arrival of sound signals and the masking noise
(Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; Bain et al., 1993; Bain and
Dahlheim, 1994). Toothed whales and probably other marine mammals as
well, have additional capabilities besides directional hearing that can
facilitate detection of sounds in the presence of background noise.
There is evidence that some toothed whales can shift the dominant
frequencies of their echolocation signals from a frequency range with a
lot of ambient noise toward frequencies with less noise (Au et al.,
1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko
and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A few marine mammal species are
known to increase the source levels or alter the frequency of their
calls in the presence of elevated sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au,
1993; Lesage et al., 1993, 1999; Terhune, 1999; Foote et al., 2004;
Parks et al., 2007, 2009; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009).
These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain
mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed
whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding
mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine
mammals. For example, Zaitseva et al. (1980) found that, for the
bottlenose dolphin, the angular separation between a sound source and a
masking noise source had little effect on the degree of masking when
the sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast to the pronounced effect at
higher frequencies. Directional hearing has been demonstrated at
frequencies as low as 0.5-2 kHz in several marine mammals, including
killer whales (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability may be useful in
reducing masking at these frequencies. In summary, high levels of sound
generated by anthropogenic activities may act to mask the detection of
weaker biologically important sounds by some marine mammals. This
masking may be more prominent for lower frequencies. For higher
frequencies, such as that used in echolocation by toothed whales,
several mechanisms are available that may allow them to reduce the
effects of such masking.
Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift
(TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to
days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of
hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can
be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity
might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is
permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a
specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role
in inducing auditory TS: effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear
that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment
within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear,
displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and
post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output
(Southall et al., 2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal
pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the
amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As
amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, so, generally, does
the amount of TS, along with the recovery time. For intermittent
sounds, less TS could occur than compared to a continuous exposure with
the same energy (some recovery could occur between intermittent
exposures depending on the duty cycle between sounds) (Kryter et al.,
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one short but loud (higher SPL) sound
exposure may induce the same impairment as one longer but softer sound,
which in turn may cause more impairment than a series of several
intermittent softer sounds with the same total energy (Ward, 1997).
Additionally, though TTS is temporary, prolonged exposure to sounds
strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels
well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial
mammals (Kryter, 1985). In the case of the seismic survey, animals are
not expected to be exposed to levels high enough or durations long
enough to result in PTS.
PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007).
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause
PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the
elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner
ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear
fluids (Southall et al., 2007).
Although the published body of scientific literature contains
numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing
impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound,
[[Page 14924]]
only a few studies provide empirical information on the levels at which
noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in nonhuman animals.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, 2010a,
2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al.,
2009a, 2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a;
Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in
water, data are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an
elephant seal, and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005;
Kastelein et al., 2012b).
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious
impacts. Similarly, depending on the degree and frequency range, the
effects of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is
considered generally more serious because it is a permanent condition.
Of note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has
been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa
(Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for
coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without
cost.
Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during
the proposed seismic surveys in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid
the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other
marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but
their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as
those of cetaceans, and occasionally they seem to be attracted to
operating seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010).
Non-auditory Physical Effects: Non-auditory physical effects might
occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound.
Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that
theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types
of organ or tissue damage. Some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked
whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when
exposed to strong pulsed sounds.
Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous
system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception
triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually
threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to
trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; Seyle,
1950). Once an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it
mounts a biological response or defense that consists of a combination
of the four general biological defense responses: behavioral responses;
autonomic nervous system responses; neuroendocrine responses; or immune
responses.
In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and most
economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance
of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a
stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the
sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical
``fight or flight'' response, which includes the cardiovascular system,
the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal
medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with
``stress.'' These responses have a relatively short duration and may or
may not have significant long-term effects on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its
neuroendocrine or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has
received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal
system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-
pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress
responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress--including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by
pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of
pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg,
1987; Rivier, 1995), altered metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), reduced
immune competence (Blecha, 2000), and behavioral disturbance. Increases
in the circulation of glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, corticosterone,
and aldosterone in marine mammals; see Romano et al., 2004) have been
equated with stress for many years.
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost
of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen
stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a
risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress
response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic
functions, which impair those functions that experience the diversion.
For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from
growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth.
When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an
animal's reproductive success and fitness will suffer. In these cases,
the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state
which is called ``distress'' (sensu Seyle, 1950) or ``allostatic
loading'' (sensu McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state
will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient
to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-
term (days or weeks) stress response due to exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented
fairly well through controlled experiment; because this physiology
exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising
that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both
laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton et al.,
1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004;
Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer,
2000). Although no information has been collected on the physiological
responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound exposure, studies of
other marine animals and terrestrial animals would lead us to expect
some
[[Page 14925]]
marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and,
perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as
``distress'' upon exposure to anthropogenic sounds.
For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between
acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of
stress responses in humans (e.g., elevated respiration and increased
heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance
when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance.
Trimper et al. (1998) reported on the physiological stress responses of
osprey to low-level aircraft noise while Krausman et al. (2004)
reported on the auditory and physiology stress responses of endangered
Sonoran pronghorn to military overflights. Smith et al. (2004a, 2004b)
identified noise-induced physiological transient stress responses in
hearing-specialist fish (i.e., goldfish) that accompanied short- and
long-term hearing losses. Welch and Welch (1970) reported physiological
and behavioral stress responses that accompanied damage to the inner
ears of fish and several mammals.
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather
information about their environment and communicate with conspecifics.
Although empirical information on the effects of sensory impairment
(TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains limited, we
assume that reducing a marine mammal's ability to gather information
about its environment and communicate with other members of its species
would induce stress, based on data that terrestrial animals exhibit
those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003) and because marine
mammals use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, we
assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS
would be accompanied by physiological stress responses. However, marine
mammals also might experience stress responses at received levels lower
than those necessary to trigger onset TTS. Based on empirical studies
of the time required to recover from stress responses (Moberg, 2000),
NMFS also assumes that stress responses could persist beyond the time
interval required for animals to recover from TTS and might result in
pathological and pre-pathological states that would be as significant
as behavioral responses to TTS. Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and
direct noise-induced bubble formations (Crum et al., 2005) are
implausible in the case of exposure to an impulsive broadband source
like an airgun array. If seismic surveys disrupt diving patterns of
deep-diving species, this might result in bubble formation and a form
of the bends, as speculated to occur in beaked whales exposed to sonar.
However, there is no specific evidence of this upon exposure to airgun
pulses. Additionally, no beaked whale species occur in the proposed
seismic survey area.
In general, very little is known about the potential for strong,
anthropogenic underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects
in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably
be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a
prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a
specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be
expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative
predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be
affected in those ways. There is no definitive evidence that any of
these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large
arrays of airguns. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral
avoidance of seismic vessels, including belugas and some pinnipeds, are
especially unlikely to incur non-auditory impairment or other physical
effects. Therefore, it is unlikely that such effects would occur during
SAE's proposed surveys given the brief duration of exposure and the
planned monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this
document.
Stranding and Mortality: Marine mammals close to underwater
detonations of high explosive can be killed or severely injured, and
the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al.
1993; Ketten 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and their peak
amplitudes have slower rise times. To date, there is no evidence that
serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can occur from
exposure to air gun pulses, even in the case of large air gun arrays.
However, in past IHA notices for seismic surveys, commenters have
referenced two stranding events allegedly associated with seismic
activities, one off Baja California and a second off Brazil. NMFS has
addressed this concern several times, including in the Federal Register
notice announcing the IHA for Apache Alaska's first seismic survey in
2012. Readers are encouraged to review NMFS's 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. As a result, NMFS does not expect
any marine mammals will incur serious injury or mortality in Cook Inlet
or strand as a result of the proposed seismic survey.
2. Potential Effects From Pingers on Marine Mammals
Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed
for SAE's oil and gas exploration seismic survey program in Cook Inlet.
The specifications for the pingers (source levels and frequency ranges)
were provided earlier in this document. In general, pingers are known
to cause behavioral disturbance and are commonly used to deter marine
mammals from commercial fishing gear or fish farms. Due to the
potential to change marine mammal behavior, shut downs described for
airguns will also be applied to pinger use.
Vessel Impacts
Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will
temporarily increase in the action area during SAE's seismic survey as
a result of the operation of nine vessels. To minimize the effects of
vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, SAE will follow
NMFS's 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 (4-5 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.
[[Page 14926]]
Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor
porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may
react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or
were previously harassed by vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Beluga
whale response to vessel noise varies greatly from tolerance to extreme
sensitivity depending on the activity of the whale and previous
experience with vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Reactions to vessels
depend on whale activities and experience, habitat, boat type, and boat
behavior (Richardson et al., 1995) and may include behavioral
responses, such as altered headings or avoidance (Blane and Jaakson,
1994; Erbe and Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; changes in vocalizations
(Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in dive,
surfacing, and respiration patterns.
There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel
activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson et al.,
1995). Generally, sea lions in water show tolerance to close and
frequently approaching vessels and sometimes show interest in fishing
vessels. They are less tolerant when hauled out on land; however, they
rarely react unless the vessel approaches within 100-200 m (330-660 ft;
reviewed in Richardson et al., 1995).
Entanglement
Although some of SAE's equipment contains cables or lines, the risk
of entanglement is extremely remote. Additionally, mortality from
entanglement is not anticipated. The material used by SAE and the
amount of slack is not anticipated to allow for marine mammal
entanglements.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other
marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by
airguns and other active acoustic sources. However, other potential
impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also
possible. This section describes the potential impacts to marine mammal
habitat from the specified activity. Because the marine mammals in the
area feed on fish and/or invertebrates there is also information on the
species typically preyed upon by the marine mammals in the area. As
noted earlier, upper Cook Inlet is an important feeding and calving
area for the Cook Inlet beluga whale and critical habitat has been
designated for this species in the proposed seismic survey area.
Common Marine Mammal Prey in the Project Area
Fish are the primary prey species for marine mammals in upper Cook
Inlet. Beluga whales feed on a variety of fish, shrimp, squid, and
octopus (Burns and Seaman, 1986). Common prey species in Knik Arm
include salmon, eulachon and cod. Harbor seals feed on fish such as
pollock, cod, capelin, eulachon, Pacific herring, and salmon, as well
as a variety of benthic species, including crabs, shrimp, and
cephalopods. Harbor seals are also opportunistic feeders with their
diet varying with season and location. The preferred diet of the harbor
seal in the Gulf of Alaska consists of pollock, octopus, capelin,
eulachon, and Pacific herring (Calkins, 1989). Other prey species
include cod, flat fishes, shrimp, salmon, and squid (Hoover, 1988).
Harbor porpoises feed primarily on Pacific herring, cod, whiting
(hake), pollock, squid, and octopus (Leatherwood et al., 1982). In the
upper Cook Inlet area, harbor porpoise feed on squid and a variety of
small schooling fish, which would likely include Pacific herring and
eulachon (Bowen and Siniff, 1999; NMFS, unpublished data). Killer
whales feed on either fish or other marine mammals depending on genetic
type (resident versus transient respectively). Killer whales in Knik
Arm are typically the transient type (Shelden et al., 2003) and feed on
beluga whales and other marine mammals, such as harbor seal and harbor
porpoise. The Steller sea lion diet consists of a variety of fishes
(capelin, cod, herring, mackerel, pollock, rockfish, salmon, sand
lance, etc.), bivalves, squid, octopus, and gastropods.
Potential Impacts on Prey Species
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the
signal in relation to the natural background sound level.
Fishes produce sounds that are associated with behaviors that
include territoriality, mate search, courtship, and aggression. It has
also been speculated that sound production may provide the means for
long distance communication and communication under poor underwater
visibility conditions (Zelick et al., 1999), although the fact that
fish communicate at low-frequency sound levels where the masking
effects of ambient noise are naturally highest suggests that very long
distance communication would rarely be possible. Fishes have evolved a
diversity of sound generating organs and acoustic signals of various
temporal and spectral contents. Fish sounds vary in structure,
depending on the mechanism used to produce them (Hawkins, 1993).
Generally, fish sounds are predominantly composed of low frequencies
(less than 3 kHz).
Since objects in the water scatter sound, fish are able to detect
these objects through monitoring the ambient noise. Therefore, fish are
probably able to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, and physical
features by listening to environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). There
are two sensory systems that enable fish to monitor the vibration-based
information of their surroundings. The two sensory systems, the inner
ear and the lateral line, constitute the acoustico-lateralis system.
Although the hearing sensitivities of very few fish species have
been studied to date, it is becoming obvious that the intra- and inter-
specific variability is considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell et al.
(2004) compiled and published available fish audiogram information. A
noninvasive electrophysiological recording method known as auditory
brainstem response is now commonly used in the production of fish
audiograms (Yan, 2004). Popper and Carlson (1998) and the Navy (2001)
found that fish generally perceive underwater sounds in the frequency
range of 50-2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz. Even though
some fish are able to detect sounds in the ultrasonic frequency range,
the thresholds at these higher frequencies tend to be considerably
higher than those at the lower end of the auditory frequency range.
Fish are sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds due to swim
bladder resonance. As the pressure wave passes through a fish, the swim
bladder is rapidly squeezed as the high pressure wave, and then the
under pressure component of the wave, passes through the fish. The swim
bladder may repeatedly expand and contract at the high sound pressure
levels, creating pressure on the internal organs surrounding the swim
bladder.
Literature relating to the impacts of sound on marine fish species
can be divided into the following categories: (1) Pathological effects;
(2) physiological effects; and (3) behavioral effects. Pathological
effects include lethal and
[[Page 14927]]
sub-lethal physical damage to fish; physiological effects include
primary and secondary stress responses; and behavioral effects include
changes in exhibited behaviors of fish. Behavioral changes might be a
direct reaction to a detected sound or a result of the anthropogenic
sound masking natural sounds that the fish normally detect and to which
they respond. The three types of effects are often interrelated in
complex ways. For example, some physiological and behavioral effects
could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological effect of
mortality. Hastings and Popper (2005) reviewed what is known about the
effects of sound on fishes and identified studies needed to address
areas of uncertainty relative to measurement of sound and the responses
of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/2004) also published a paper that
reviews the effects of anthropogenic sound on the behavior and
physiology of fishes.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of
sound rather than a continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a
quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity
rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level.
Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen
et al., 1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) have shown that fish react
when the sound from the engines and propeller exceeds a certain level.
Avoidance reactions have been observed in fish such as cod and herring
when vessels approached close enough that received sound levels are 110
dB to 130 dB (Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and Godo, 1990; Ona and
Toresen, 1988). However, other researchers have found that fish such as
polar cod, herring, and capelin are often attracted to vessels
(apparently by the noise) and swim toward the vessel (Rostad et al.,
2006). Typical sound source levels of vessel noise in the audible range
for fish are 150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 1995).
Carlson (1994), in a review of 40 years of studies concerning the
use of underwater sound to deter salmonids from hazardous areas at
hydroelectric dams and other facilities, concluded that salmonids were
able to respond to low-frequency sound and to react to sound sources
within a few feet of the source. He speculated that the reason that
underwater sound had no effect on salmonids at distances greater than a
few feet is because they react to water particle motion/acceleration,
not sound pressures. Detectable particle motion is produced within very
short distances of a sound source, although sound pressure waves travel
farther.
Potential Impacts to the Benthic Environment
SAE's seismic survey requires the deployment of a submersible
recording system in the inter-tidal and marine zones. An autonomous
``nodal'' (i.e., no cables) system would be placed on the seafloor by
specific vessels in lines parallel to each other with a node line
spacing of 402 m (0.25 mi). Each nodal ``patch'' would have 32 node
lines parallel to each other. The lines generally run perpendicular to
the shoreline. An entire patch would be placed on the seafloor prior to
airgun activity. As the patches are surveyed, the node lines would be
moved either side to side or inline to the next location. Placement and
retrieval of the nodes may cause temporary and localized increases in
turbidity on the seafloor. The substrate of Cook Inlet consists of
glacial silt, clay, cobbles, pebbles, and sand (Sharma and Burrell,
1970). Sediments like sand and cobble dissipate quickly when suspended,
but finer materials like clay and silt can create thicker plumes that
may harm fish; however, the turbidity created by placing and removing
nodes on the seafloor would settle to background levels within minutes
after the cessation of activity.
In addition, seismic noise will radiate throughout the water column
from airguns and pingers until it dissipates to background levels. No
studies have demonstrated that seismic noise affects the life stages,
condition, or amount of food resources (fish, invertebrates, eggs) used
by marine mammals, except when exposed to sound levels within a few
meters of the seismic source or in few very isolated cases. Where fish
or invertebrates did respond to seismic noise, the effects were
temporary and of short duration. Consequently, disturbance to fish
species due to the activities associated with the seismic survey (i.e.,
placement and retrieval of nodes and noise from sound sources) would be
short term and fish would be expected to return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once seismic survey activities cease.
Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed activity is not
expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or
their populations.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
Mitigation Measures Proposed by SAE
For the proposed mitigation measures, SAE listed the following
protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey program in Cook
Inlet.
1. Operation of Mitigation Airgun at Night
SAE proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations.
Nighttime operations would be initiated only if a ``mitigation airgun''
(typically the 10 in\3\) has been continuously operational from the
time that PSO monitoring has ceased for the day. 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. 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 exclusion zones.
2. Exclusion and Disturbance Zones
SAE proposes to establish exclusion zones to avoid Level A
harassment (``injury exclusion zone'') of all marine mammals and to
avoid Level B harassment (``disturbance exclusion zone'') of any beluga
whales or groups of five or more killer whales or harbor porpoises
detected within the designated zones. The injury exclusion zone will
correspond to the area around the source within which received levels
equal or exceed 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re
1 [micro]Pa [rms] for pinnipeds and SAE will shut down or power down
operations if any marine mammals are seen approaching or entering this
zone (more detail below). The disturbance exclusion zone will
correspond to the area around the
[[Page 14928]]
source within which received levels equal or exceed 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa [rms] and SAE will implement power down and/or shutdown
measures, as appropriate, if any beluga whales or group of five or more
killer whales or harbor porpoises are seen entering or approaching the
disturbance exclusion zone.
3. Power Down and Shutdown Procedures
A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating
energy sources from a full array firing to a mitigation airgun. A
shutdown is the immediate cessation of firing of all energy sources.
The arrays will be immediately powered down whenever a marine mammal is
sighted approaching close to or within the applicable exclusion zone of
the full arrays but is outside the applicable exclusion zone of the
single source. If a marine mammal is sighted within the applicable
exclusion zone of the single energy source, the entire array will be
shutdown (i.e., no sources firing). Following a power down or a
shutdown, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has
clearly left the applicable injury or disturbance exclusion zone. The
animal will be considered to have cleared the zone if it: (1) Is
visually observed to have left the zone; (2) has not been seen within
the zone for 15 minutes in the case of pinnipeds and small odontocetes;
or (3) has not been seen within the zone for 30 minutes in the case of
large odontocetes, including killer whales and belugas.
4. Ramp-up Procedures
A ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound
levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total
volume of air guns firing until the full volume is achieved. The
purpose of a ramp-up (or ``soft start'') is to ``warn'' cetaceans and
pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for
them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or
impairment of their hearing abilities.
During the proposed seismic survey, the seismic operator will ramp
up the airgun array slowly. NMFS proposes that the rate of ramp-up to
be no more than 6 dB per 5-minute period. Ramp-up is used at the start
of airgun operations, after a power- or shut-down, and after any period
of greater than 10 minutes in duration without airgun operations (i.e.,
extended shutdown).
A full ramp-up after a shutdown will not begin until there has been
a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the applicable exclusion zone
by PSOs to assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire
exclusion zone must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full
ramp up. If the entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp-up from
a cold start cannot begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the
injury exclusion zone during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp-up,
ramp-up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside
of the zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15-30 minutes:
15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g. harbor porpoises,
harbor seals, and Steller sea lions), or 30 minutes for large
odontocetes (e.g., killer whales and beluga whales).
5. Speed or Course Alteration
If a marine mammal is detected outside the Level A injury exclusion
zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to
enter that zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when
practical and safe, be changed to also minimize the effect on the
seismic program. This can be used in coordination with a power down
procedure. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the
seismic and support vessels will be closely monitored to ensure that
the marine mammal does not approach within the applicable exclusion
radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the exclusion radius,
further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course
alterations, power down, or shut down of the airgun(s).
6. Measures for Beluga Whales and Groups of Killer Whales and Harbor
Porpoises
The following additional protective measures for beluga whales and
groups of five or more killer whales and harbor porpoises are proposed.
Specifically, a 160-dB vessel monitoring zone would be established and
monitored in Cook Inlet during all seismic surveys. If a beluga whale
or groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are
visually sighted approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone,
survey activity would not commence until the animals are no longer
present within the 160-dB disturbance zone. Whenever beluga whales or
groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are
detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, the airguns
may be powered down before the animal is within the 160-dB disturbance
zone, as an alternative to a complete shutdown. If a power down is not
sufficient, the sound source(s) shall be shut-down until the animals
are no longer present within the 160-dB zone.
Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS
In addition to the mitigation measures above, NMFS proposes
implementation of the following mitigation measures.
SAE will 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 April 15 and October 15. The purpose of
this mitigation measure is to protect beluga whales in the designated
critical habitat in this area that is important for beluga whale
feeding and calving during the spring and fall months. The range of the
setback required by NMFS was designated to protect this important
habitat area and also to create an effective buffer where sound does
not encroach on this habitat. This seasonal exclusion is proposed to be
in effect from April 15-October 15. Activities can occur within this
area from October 16-April 14.
The mitigation airgun will be operated at approximately one shot
per minute, only during daylight and when there is good visibility, and
will not be operated for longer than 3 hours in duration. In cases when
the next start-up after the turn is expected to be during lowlight or
low visibility, use of the mitigation airgun may be initiated 30
minutes before darkness or low visibility conditions occur and may be
operated until the start of the next seismic acquisition line. The
mitigation gun must still be operated at approximately one shot per
minute.
NMFS proposes that SAE must suspend seismic operations if a live
marine mammal stranding is reported in Cook Inlet coincident to, or
within 72 hours of, seismic survey activities involving the use of
airguns (regardless of any suspected cause of the stranding). The
shutdown must occur if the animal is within a distance two times that
of the 160 dB isopleth of the largest airgun array configuration in
use. This distance was chosen to create an additional buffer beyond the
distance at which animals would typically be considered harassed, as
animals involved in a live stranding event are likely compromised, with
potentially increased susceptibility to stressors, and the goal is to
decrease the likelihood that they are further disturbed or impacted by
the seismic survey, regardless of what the original cause of the
stranding event was. Shutdown procedures will remain in effect until
NMFS determines and advises SAE that all live animals involved in the
stranding have left the
[[Page 14929]]
area (either of their own volition or following herding by responders).
Finally, NMFS proposes that if any marine mammal species are
encountered, during seismic activities for which take is not
authorized, that are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels
(SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), then SAE
must alter speed or course, power down or shut-down the sound source to
avoid take of those species.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated SAE'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 adverse
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their
habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of
the following factors in relation to one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received
levels of seismic airguns, or other activities expected to result in
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number
or number at biologically important time or location) to received
levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance
of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
SAE submitted information regarding marine mammal monitoring to be
conducted during seismic operations as part of the proposed IHA
application. That information can be found in Sections 11 and 13 of the
application. The monitoring measures may be modified or supplemented
based on comments or new information received from the public during
the public comment period.
Monitoring measures proposed by the applicant or prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to or accomplish one or more of the following top-
level goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of
marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence,
abundance, distribution, and/or density of species.
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or
context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the
potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g. sound or visual
stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following:
the action itself and its environment (e.g. sound source
characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected
species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated
with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or
behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal
(e.g. age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding
areas).
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine
mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific
stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where
possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual
responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of
stressors, may impact either: the long-term fitness and survival of an
individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g., through effects
on annual rates of recruitment or survival).
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects
marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or
acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term
contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels
and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on
marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic
activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of
mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals
(through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within
the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
1. Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by
experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities.
PSOs
[[Page 14930]]
would monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near the
survey vessel during all daylight periods (nautical dawn to nautical
dusk) 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 observed ``take by
harassment'' as defined by NMFS.
A minimum number of six PSOs (two per source vessel and two per
support vessel) 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 (nautical twilight-dawn to
nautical twilight-dusk; (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 NMFS-approved field biologists. An
experienced field crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the
survey vessel. SAE currently plans to have PSOs aboard three vessels:
The two source vessels and one support vessel (M/V Dreamcatcher). Two
PSOs would be on the source vessels, and two PSOs would be on the
support vessel to observe and implement the exclusion, power down, and
shut down areas. When marine mammals are about to enter or are sighted
within designated harassment and exclusion zones, airgun or pinger
operations would be powered down (when applicable) or shut down
immediately. The vessel-based observers would watch for marine mammals
during all periods when sound sources are in operation and for a
minimum of 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun or pinger operations
after an extended shut down.
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 7 x 50 reticle binoculars, assisted by 40 x 80 long-
range binoculars.
All observations would be recorded in a standardized format. When a
mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting
would be recorded:
Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if
determinable), sighting cue, behavior when first sighted and after
initial sighting, time of sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing
and distance from the PSO, direction and speed relative to vessel,
apparent reaction to activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach,
paralleling, etc.), closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel (e.g.,
seismic airguns off, pingers on, etc.), sea state, ice cover,
visibility, and sun glare; and
The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the
PSO location.
The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water
temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun
glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation
watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change
in any of those variables.
2. Visual Shore-Based Monitoring
In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, SAE proposes to utilize
shore-based monitoring daily in the event of summer seismic activity
occurring nearshore to Cook Inlet beluga Critical Habitat Area 1, to
visually monitor for marine mammals. The shore-based PSOs would scan
the area prior to, during, and after the airgun operations and would be
in contact with the vessel-based PSOs via radio to communicate
sightings of marine mammals approaching or within the project area.
This communication will allow the vessel-based observers to go on a
``heightened'' state of alert regarding occurrence of marine mammals in
the area and aid in timely implementation of mitigation measures.
Reporting Measures
Immediate reports will be submitted to NMFS if 25 belugas are
detected in the Level B disturbance exclusion zone to evaluate and make
necessary adjustments to monitoring and mitigation. If the number of
detected takes for any marine mammal species is met or exceeded, SAE
will immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active
sound sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
1. Weekly Reports
SAE would submit a weekly field report to NMFS Headquarters as well
as the Alaska Regional Office, no later than close of business each
Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic survey activities take
place. The weekly field reports would summarize species detected
(number, location, distance from seismic vessel, behavior), in-water
activity occurring at the time of the sighting (discharge volume of
array at time of sighting, seismic activity at time of sighting, visual
plots of sightings, and number of power downs and shutdowns),
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine
mammals exposed.
2. Monthly Reports
Monthly reports will be submitted to NMFS for all months during
which in-water seismic activities take place. The monthly report will
contain and summarize the following information:
Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea
conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and
associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal
sightings.
Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and
behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated seismic
activity (number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all
monitoring activities.
An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds
that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans
that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
A description of the implementation and effectiveness of
the: (i) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental
Take Statement (ITS); and (ii) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the
Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each
Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and
describe their effectiveness for minimizing the adverse effects of the
action on ESA-listed marine mammals.
3. Annual Reports
SAE would submit an annual report to NMFS's Permits and
Conservation Division within 90 days after the end of operations on the
water or at least 90 days prior to requiring a subsequent
authorization, whichever comes first. The annual report would include:
Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period,
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and
detectability of marine mammals).
Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare).
Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of
marine mammal
[[Page 14931]]
sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover.
Analyses of the effects of survey operations.
Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could
affect detectability), such as: (i) Initial sighting distances versus
survey activity state; (ii) closest point of approach versus survey
activity state; (iii) observed behaviors and types of movements versus
survey activity state; (iv) numbers of sightings/individuals seen
versus survey activity state; (v) distribution around the source
vessels versus survey activity state; and (vi) numbers of animals
detected in the 160 dB harassment (disturbance exclusion) zone.
NMFS would review the draft annual report. SAE must then submit a
final annual report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving
comments from NMFS on the draft annual report. If NMFS decides that the
draft annual report needs no comments, the draft report shall be
considered to be the final report.
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 this
Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury
or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or
entanglement), SAE 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, her
designees, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report
must 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 shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with SAE to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
In the event that SAE 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),
SAE would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, her
designees, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline. The report must
include the same information identified in the paragraph above.
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS would work with SAE to determine whether modifications
in the activities are appropriate.
In the event that SAE 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 authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded
animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger
damage), SAE shall report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, her
designees, the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline, and the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators within 24 hours of the discovery. SAE 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.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
While SAE has previously applied for Authorizations for work in
Cook Inlet, Alaska, work was not conducted upon receiving the
Authorization. SAE has previously conducted work under Incidental
Harassment Authorizations in the Beaufort Sea.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of 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; 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 seismic survey
program with proposed mitigation. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals
are associated with noise propagation from the sound sources (e.g.,
airguns and pingers) used in the seismic survey; no take is expected to
result from vessel strikes because of the slow speed of the vessels (4-
5 knots).
SAE requests authorization to take nine marine mammal species by
Level B harassment. These nine marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet
beluga whale; humpback whale; minke whale; killer whale; harbor
porpoise; Dall's porpoise; gray whale; harbor seal; and Steller sea
lion.
For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the
seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dB re 1[micro]Pa (rms) isopleth to
indicate the onset of Level B harassment. The current Level A (injury)
harassment threshold is 180 dB (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB (rms) for
pinnipeds. The NMFS annual aerial survey data from 2002-2012 was used
to derive density estimates for each species (number of individuals/
km\2\).
Applicable Zones for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''
To estimate potential takes by Level B harassment for this proposed
authorization, as well as for mitigation radii to be implemented by
PSOs, ranges to the 160 dB (rms), 180 dB, and 190 dB isopleths were
estimated at three different water depths (5 m, 25 m, and 45 m) . The
distances to this threshold for the nearshore survey locations are
provided in Table 4 in SAE's application. The distances to the
thresholds provided in Table 4 in SAE's application correspond to the
broadside and endfire directions.
Compared to the airguns, the relevant isopleths for the positioning
pinger are quite small. The distances to the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms)
isopleths are 1 m,
[[Page 14932]]
3 m, and 25 m (3.3, 10, and 82 ft), respectively.
Estimates of Marine Mammal Density
SAE used one method to estimate densities for Cook Inlet beluga
whales and another method for the other marine mammals in the area
expected to be taken by harassment. Both methods are described in this
document.
1. Beluga Whale Density Estimates
In similar fashion to a previous IHA issued to Apache, SAE used a
habitat-based model developed by Goetz et al. (2012a). Information from
that model has once again been used to estimate densities of beluga
whales in Cook Inlet and we consider it to be the best available
information on beluga density. A summary of the model is provided here,
and additional detail can be found in Goetz et al. (2012a). To develop
NMML's estimated densities of belugas, Goetz et al. (2012a) developed a
model based on aerial survey data, depth soundings, coastal substrate
type, environmental sensitivity index, anthropogenic disturbance, and
anadromous fish streams to predict beluga densities throughout Cook
Inlet. The result of this work is a beluga density map of Cook Inlet,
which easily sums the belugas predicted within a given geographic area.
NMML developed its predictive habitat model from the distribution and
group size of beluga whales observed between 1994 and 2008. A 2-part
``hurdle'' model (a hurdle model in which there are two processes, one
generating the zeroes and one generating the positive values) was
applied to describe the physical and anthropogenic factors that
influence (1) beluga presence (mixed model logistic regression) and (2)
beluga count data (mixed model Poisson regression). Beluga presence was
negatively associated with sources of anthropogenic disturbance and
positively associated with fish availability and access to tidal flats
and sandy substrates. Beluga group size was positively associated with
tidal flats and proxies for seasonally available fish. Using this
analysis, Goetz et al. (2012) produced habitat maps for beluga
presence, group size, and the expected number of belugas in each 1
km\2\ cell of Cook Inlet. The habitat-based model developed by NMML
uses a Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS is a computer system
capable of capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically
referenced information; that is, data identified according to location.
However, the Goetz et al. (2012) model does not incorporate seasonality
into the density estimates. Rather, SAE factors in seasonal
considerations of beluga density into the design of the survey
tracklines and locations (as discussion in more detail later in this
document) in addition to other factors such as weather, ice conditions,
and seismic needs.
2. Non-Beluga Whale Species Density Estimates
Densities of other marine mammals in the proposed project area were
estimated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS for Cook
Inlet beluga whale between 2000 and 2012 in June (Rugh et al., 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005b, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al., 2008, 2009,
2010, 2012; Hobbs et al., 2011). These surveys were flown in June to
collect abundance data of beluga whales, but sightings of other marine
mammals were also reported. Although these data were only collected in
one month each year, these surveys provide the best available
relatively long term data set for sighting information in the proposed
project area. The general trend in marine mammal sighting is that
beluga whales and harbor seals are seen most frequently in upper Cook
Inlet, with higher concentrations of harbor seals near haul out sites
on Kalgin Island and of beluga whales near river mouths, particularly
the Susitna River. The other marine mammals of interest for this
authorization (humpback whales, gray whales, minke whales, killer
whales, harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoises, Steller sea lions) are
observed infrequently in upper Cook Inlet and more commonly in lower
Cook Inlet. In addition, these densities are calculated based on a
relatively large area that was surveyed, much larger than the proposed
area for a given year of seismic data acquisition. Furthermore, these
annual aerial surveys are conducted only in June (numbers from August
surveys were not used because the area surveyed was not provided), so
it does not account for seasonal variations in distribution or habitat
use of each species.
Table 5 in SAE's application provides a summary of the results of
NMFS aerial survey data collected in June from 2000 to 2012. To
estimate density of marine mammals, total number of individuals (other
species) observed for the entire survey area by year (surveys usually
last several days) was divided by the approximate total area surveyed
for each year (density = individuals/km\2\). As noted previously, the
total number of animals observed for the entire survey includes both
lower and upper Cook Inlet, so the total number reported and used to
calculate density is higher than the number of marine mammals
anticipated to be observed in the project area. In particular, the
total number of harbor seals observed on several surveys is very high
due to several large haul outs in lower and middle Cook Inlet. The
table below (Table 2) provides average density estimates for gray
whales, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, killer whales, and Steller sea
lions over the 2000-2012 period.
Table 2--Animal Densities in Cook Inlet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average density
Species (animals/km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale....................................... 0.0024
Gray whale........................................... 9.45E-05
Minke whale.......................................... 1.14E-05
Killer whale......................................... 0.0008
Dall's porpoise...................................... 0.0002
Harbor porpoise...................................... 0.0033
Harbor seal.......................................... 0.28
Steller sea lion..................................... 0.008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Takes by Harassment
1. Beluga Whales
As a result of discussions with NMFS, SAE has used the NMML model
(Goetz et al., 2012a) for the estimate of takes in this proposed
authorization. SAE has established two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2) and
proposes to conduct seismic surveys within all, or part of these zones;
to be determined as weather, ice, and priorities dictate, which can be
found in the attached figure which will be posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm.
Based on information using Goetz et al. model(2012a), SAE derived
one density estimate for beluga whales in Upper Cook Inlet (i.e., north
of the Forelands) and another density estimate for beluga whales in
Lower Cook Inlet (i.e., south of the Forelands). The density estimate
for Upper Cook Inlet is 0.0212 and is 0.0056 for Lower Cook Inlet.
SAE's seismic operational area would be determined as weather, ice, and
priorities dictate. SAE has requested a maximum allowed take for Cook
Inlet beluga whales of 30 individuals. SAE would operate in a portion
of the total seismic operation area of 3,934 km\2\ (1,519 mi\2\), such
that when one multiplies the anticipated beluga whale density based on
the seismic survey operational area times the area to be ensonified to
the 160-dB isopleth of 9.5 km (5.9 mi) and takes the number of days
into consideration, estimated takes will not exceed 30 beluga whales.
In order to estimate when that level is reached, SAE is using a
formula based on the total potential area of each seismic survey
project zone (including
[[Page 14933]]
the 160 dB buffer) and the average density of beluga whales for each
zone. Daily take is calculated as the product of a daily ensonified
area times the density in that area. Then daily take is summed across
all the days of the survey until the survey approaches 30 takes.
Table 3--Expected Beluga Whale Takes, Total Area of Zone, and Average Beluga Whale Density Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Beluga takes from NMML
model (including the 160 dB Total area of zone (km\2\) Average take density (dx)
buffer) (including the 160 dB buffer)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1--Upper Inlet........................... 28 2,126 d1 = 0.0212
Zone 2--Lower Inlet........................... 29 1,808 d2 = 0.0056
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE will limit surveying in the proposed seismic survey area (Zones
1 and 2 presented in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE's application) to ensure a
maximum of 30 beluga takes during the open water season. In order to
ensure that SAE does not exceed 30 beluga whale takes, the following
equation is being used:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20MR15.004
This formula also allows SAE to have flexibility to prioritize
survey locations in response to local weather, ice, and operational
constraints. SAE may choose to survey portions of a zone or a zone in
its entirety, and the analysis in this proposed authorization takes
this into account. Using this formula, if SAE surveys the entire area
of Zone 1 (1,319 km\2\), then essentially none of Zone 2 will be
surveyed because the input in the calculation denoted by
d2A2 would essentially need to be zero to ensure
that the total allotted proposed take of beluga whales is not exceeded.
The use of this formula will ensure that SAE's proposed seismic survey
will not exceed 30 calculated beluga takes.
Operations are required to cease once SAE has conducted seismic
data acquisition in an area where multiplying the applicable density by
the total ensonified area out to the 160-dB isopleth equaled 30 beluga
whales, using the equation provided above.
2. Other Marine Mammal Species
The estimated takes of other Cook Inlet marine mammals that may be
potentially harassed during the seismic surveys was calculated by
multiplying the following:
Average density estimates (derived from NMFS aerial
surveys from 2000-2012 and presented in Table 3 in this document)
the area ensonified by levels >=160 dB re [mu]Pa rms in
one day (calculated using the total ensonified area per day of 414.92
km\2\, which is derived by applying the buffer distance to the 160 dB
isopleth to the area of 6 survey tracklines),
the number of potential survey days (160).
This equation provides the number of instances of take that will
occur in the duration of the survey, but overestimates the number of
individual animals taken because not every exposure on every successive
day is expected to be a new individual. Especially with resident
species, re-exposures of individuals are expected across the months of
the survey.
SAE anticipates that a crew will collect seismic data for 8-10
hours per day over approximately 160 days over the course of 8 to 9
months each year. It is assumed that over the course of these 160 days,
no more than 777 km\2\ will be surveyed in total, but areas can be
surveyed more than once. It is important to note that environmental
conditions (such as ice, wind, fog) will play a significant role in the
actual operating days; therefore, these estimates are conservative in
order to provide a basis for probability of encountering these marine
mammal species in the project area.
As noted above, using the above method results in an accurate
estimate of the instances of take, but likely significantly
overestimates the number of individual animals expected to be taken.
With most species, even this overestimated number is still very small,
and additional analysis is not really necessary to ensure minor
impacts. However, because of the number and density of harbor seals in
the area, a more accurate understanding of the number of individuals
likely taken is necessary to fully analyze the impacts and ensure that
the total number of harbor seals taken is small. Montgomery et al.
(2007) surveyed harbor seals in Cook Inlet from spring to fall and
found Cook Inlet harbor seals show preference for haulouts away from
anthropogenic disturbance and near abundant prey and deep water. In
order to estimate the number of individual harbor seals likely taken,
we multiplied the total ensonified area of the entire project (1,732
km\2\) times the average harbor seal density from NMML surveys (2002-
2012) to yield a snapshot abundance for the project area, which would
represent the number of individuals taken in the project area if one
assumed that no new individuals would enter the area during the
duration of the project. Since, however, we do believe that some new
individual harbor seals will enter the project area during the course
of the surveys, this snapshot abundance was adjusted using the concept
of turnover factors, from Wood et al. 2012, to account for new animals
entering the survey area. Wood derived turnover factors in an open
ocean setting, using 1.0 (no turnover) for resident populations, using
a very specifically derived 2.5 factor for migratory species, and
establishing a 1.25 factor for all other species. We did not use the
turnover factor of 1 for harbor seals suggested by Wood, but rather
considered a more conservative 2.5 to accommodate for the difference
[[Page 14934]]
between an ocean environment and the enclosed environment of the Inlet.
Summary of Proposed Level B Harassment Takes
Table 4 here outlines the density estimates used to estimate Level
B harassment takes, the requested Level B harassment take levels, the
abundance of each species in Cook Inlet, the percentage of each species
or stock estimated to be taken, and current population trends.
Table 4--Density Estimates, Proposed Level B Harassment Take Levels, Species or Stock Abundance, Percentage of
Population Proposed To Be Taken, and Species Trend Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average density
Species (#individuals/ Proposed Level Abundance Percentage of Trend
km\2\) B take population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale................. Upper=0.0212... 30 312............ 9.6 Decreasing.
Lower=0.0056...
Humpback whale............... 0.0024......... 158 7,469.......... 2.1 Southeast
Alaska
increasing.
Minke whale.................. 1.14E-05....... 1 1,233.......... 0.06 No reliable
information.
Gray whale................... 5.33E-05....... 7 19,126......... 0.033 Stable/
increasing.
Killer whale................. 0.00082........ 55 2,347 2.34 Resident stock
(resident). 15.9 possibly
345 (transient) increasing
Transient
stock stable.
Harbor porpoise.............. 0.0033......... 219 31,046......... 0.70 No reliable
information.
Dall's porpoise.............. 0.0002......... 14 83,400......... 0.016 No reliable
information.
Harbor seal.................. 0.28........... 1,223 22,900......... 5.34 Stable.
Steller sea lion............. 0.0082......... 542 45,649......... 1.19 Decreasing but
with regional
variability
(some stable
or
increasing).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyses and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes,
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment,
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any
responses (critical reproductive time or location, feeding, migration,
etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment
takes, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the
status of the species.
Given the proposed mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries
or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of SAE's proposed
seismic survey in Cook Inlet, and none are proposed to be authorized.
Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing
impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects.
The number of takes that are anticipated and proposed to be authorized
are expected to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment.
The seismic airguns do not operate continuously over a 24-hour period.
Rather airguns are operational for a few hours at a time totaling about
10 hours a day.
Cook Inlet beluga whales, the western DPS of Steller sea lions, and
Central North Pacific humpback whales are listed as endangered under
the ESA. These stocks are also considered depleted under the MMPA. The
estimated annual rate of decline for Cook Inlet beluga whales was 0.6
percent between 2002 and 2012. Steller sea lion trends for the western
stock are variable throughout the region with some decreasing and
others remaining stable or even indicating slight increases. The
Central North Pacific population of humpbacks is known to be
increasing, with different techniques predicting abundance increases
between 4.9 to 7 percent annually. The other seven species that may be
taken by harassment during SAE's proposed seismic survey program are
not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA nor as depleted
under the MMPA.
Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and
harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually
assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are
those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. Belugas in the
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer appear to be fairly responsive to
seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10-20 km (6-12 mi) of
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al., 2005). However,
as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed to anthropogenic
sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the results
from the Beaufort Sea surveys do not directly translate to potential
reactions of Cook Inlet beluga whales. Also, due to the dispersed
distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during winter and the
concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from late April
through early fall, belugas would likely occur in small numbers in the
majority of SAE's proposed survey area during the majority of SAE's
annual operational timeframe of April through December. For the same
reason, as well as mitigation measures, it is unlikely that animals
would be exposed to received levels capable of causing injury.
The addition of nine vessels, and noise due to vessel operations
associated with the seismic survey, would not be outside the present
experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may
increase locally. Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and
the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the
other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity and
noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their
populations. Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed
[[Page 14935]]
previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat''
section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of
marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to
not affect annual rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in
the area. Based on the size of Cook Inlet where feeding by marine
mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey
activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area
would be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist
elsewhere. Taking into account the mitigation measures that are
planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted
to avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-
term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level
B harassment''. Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any
area that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during
the activity are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a
small portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time,
and other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary
biological functions. In addition, NMFS proposes to seasonally restrict
seismic survey operations in the area known to be important for beluga
whale feeding, calving, or nursing. The primary location for these
biological life functions occurs in the Susitna Delta region of upper
Cook Inlet. NMFS proposes to implement a 16 km (10 mi) seasonal
exclusion from seismic survey operations in this region from April 15-
October 15. The highest concentrations of belugas are typically found
in this area from early May through September each year. NMFS has
incorporated a 2-week buffer on each end of this seasonal use timeframe
to account for any anomalies in distribution and marine mammal usage.
Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated
marine mammal observers, speed and course alterations, and shutdowns or
power downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges designed
both to avoid injury and disturbance 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 SAE's proposed seismic survey activity, operation is not
anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or
survival of the affected species or stocks, and therefore will have a
negligible impact on them.
Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed
seismic surveys more than once during the timeframe of the project.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects
on pinnipeds are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a
limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in
behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment''.
Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is
surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity
are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small portion
of pinniped habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas
within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions.
In addition, the area where the survey will take place is not known to
be an important location where pinnipeds haul out. The closest known
haul-out site is located on Kalgin Island, which is about 22 km from
the McArther River. More recently, some large congregations of harbor
seals have been observed hauling out in upper Cook Inlet. However,
mitigation measures, such as vessel speed, course alteration, and
visual monitoring, and restrictions will be implemented to help reduce
impacts to the animals. Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds
produced by this phase of SAE's proposed seismic survey is not
anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or
survival on those species or stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total annual
marine mammal take from SAE's proposed seismic survey will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
The requested takes proposed to be authorized annually represent
9.6 percent of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately
312 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2014), 2.34 percent of the Alaska
resident stock and 15.9 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island
and Bering Sea stock of killer whales (1,123 residents and 345
transients), 0.70 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately
31,046 harbor porpoises, 2.1 percent of the 7,469 Central North Pacific
humpback whales, 0.06 percent of the 1,233 Alaska minke whales, 0.016
percent of the 83,400 Gulf of Alaska Dall's porpoise, and 0.033 percent
of the eastern North Pacific stock of approximately 19,126 gray whales.
The take requests presented for harbor seals represent 5.34 percent of
the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock of approximately 22,900 animals. The
requested takes proposed for Steller sea lions represent 1.19 percent
of the U.S. portion of the western stock of approximately 45,649
animals. These take estimates represent the percentage of each species
or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment.
NMFS finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to result
from the effects of the proposed activity, as proposed to be mitigated
through this IHA, will be limited to small numbers relative to the
affected species or stocks. In addition to the quantitative methods
used to estimate take, NMFS also considered qualitative factors that
further support the ``small numbers'' determination, including: (1) The
seasonal distribution and habitat use patterns of Cook Inlet beluga
whales, which suggest that for much of the time only a small portion of
the population would be accessible to impacts from SAE's activity, as
most animals are found in the Susitna Delta region of Upper Cook Inlet
from early May through September; (2) other cetacean species and
Steller sea lions are not common in the seismic survey area; (3) the
proposed mitigation requirements, which provide spatio-temporal
limitations that avoid impacts to large numbers of belugas feeding and
calving in the Susitna Delta and limit exposures to sound levels
associated with Level B harassment; (4) the proposed monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures described earlier in this document
for all marine mammal species that will further reduce the amount of
takes; and (5) monitoring results from previous activities that
indicated low numbers of beluga whale sightings within the Level B
disturbance exclusion zone and low levels of Level B harassment takes
of other marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS determined that the numbers of
animals likely to be taken are small.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
Relevant Subsistence Uses
The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with
[[Page 14936]]
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates
Native traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to
younger generations (NOAA, 2007).
The Cook Inlet beluga whale has traditionally been hunted by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the
1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary
subsistence hunters of Cook Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s and
1990s, Alaska Natives from villages in the western, northwestern, and
North Slope regions of Alaska either moved to or visited the south
central region and participated in the yearly subsistence harvest
(Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per year
(range 21-123) were taken in this harvest, including those successfully
taken for food and those struck and lost. NMFS concluded that this
number was high enough to account for the estimated 14 percent annual
decline in the population during this time (Hobbs et al., 2008). Actual
mortality may have been higher, given the difficulty of estimating the
number of whales struck and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a
moratorium was enacted (Pub. L. 106-31) prohibiting the subsistence
take of Cook Inlet beluga whales except through a cooperative agreement
between NMFS and the affected Alaska Native organizations. Since the
Cook Inlet beluga whale harvest was regulated in 1999 requiring
cooperative agreements, five beluga whales have been struck and
harvested. Those beluga whales were harvested in 2001 (one animal),
2002 (one animal), 2003 (one animal), and 2005 (two animals). The
Native Village of Tyonek agreed not to hunt or request a hunt in 2007,
when no co-management agreement was to be signed (NMFS, 2008a).
On October 15, 2008, NMFS published a final rule that established
long-term harvest limits on 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 interval period if the average stock
abundance of Cook Inlet beluga whales over the prior five-year interval
is below 350 whales. Harvest levels for the current 5-year planning
interval (2013-2017) are zero because the average stock abundance for
the previous five-year period (2008-2012) was below 350 whales. Based
on the average abundance over the 2002-2007 period, no hunt occurred
between 2008 and 2012 (NMFS, 2008a). The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal
Council, which managed the Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS,
was disbanded by a unanimous vote of the Tribes' representatives on
June 20, 2012. At this time, no harvest is expected in 2015 or, likely,
in 2016.
Data on the harvest of other marine mammals in Cook Inlet are
lacking. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor
seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine
mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of
Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest
in Cook Inlet.
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. Some data
are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor seals, harbor
porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine mammal stock
assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of Alaska
including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest in
Cook Inlet. Some detailed information on the subsistence harvest of
harbor seals is available from past studies conducted by the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (Wolfe et al., 2009). In 2008, 33 harbor
seals were taken for harvest in the Upper Kenai-Cook Inlet area. In the
same study, reports from hunters stated that harbor seal populations in
the area were increasing (28.6%) or remaining stable (71.4%). The
specific hunting regions identified were Anchorage, Homer, Kenai, and
Tyonek, and hunting generally peaks in March, September, and November
(Wolfe et al., 2009).
Potential Impacts on Availability for Subsistence Uses
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the
taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability
of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. NMFS has
defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to
meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or
avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or
(iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the
subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by
other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow
subsistence needs to be met.
The primary concern is the disturbance of marine mammals through
the introduction of anthropogenic sound into the marine environment
during the proposed seismic survey. Marine mammals could be
behaviorally harassed and either become more difficult to hunt or
temporarily abandon traditional hunting grounds. However, the proposed
seismic survey will not have any impacts to beluga harvests as none
currently occur in Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence harvests of
other marine mammal species are limited in Cook Inlet.
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence
Hunts
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of
Cooperation or information that identifies what measures have been
taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. The entire
upper Cook unit and a portion of the lower Cook unit falls north of
60[deg] N, or within the region NMFS has designated as an Arctic
subsistence use area. There are several villages in SAE's proposed
project area that have traditionally hunted marine mammals, primarily
harbor seals. Tyonek is the only tribal village in upper Cook Inlet
with a tradition of hunting marine mammals, in this case harbor seals
and beluga whales. However, for either species the annual recorded
harvest since the 1980s has averaged about one or fewer of either
species (Fall et al. 1984, Wolfe et al. 2009, SRBA and HC 2011), and
there is currently a moratorium on subsistence harvest of belugas.
Further, many of the seals that are harvested are done incidentally to
salmon fishing or moose hunting (Fall et al. 1984, Merrill and Orpheim
2013), often near the mouths of the Susitna Delta rivers (Fall et al.
1984) north of SAE's proposed seismic survey area.
Villages in lower Cook Inlet adjacent to SAE's proposed seismic
area (Kenai, Salamatof, and Ninilchik) have either not traditionally
hunted beluga whales, or at least not in recent years, and rarely do
they harvest sea lions. Between 1992 and 2008, the only reported sea
lion harvests from this area were two Steller sea lions taken by
hunters from Kenai (Wolfe et al. 2009). These villages more commonly
harvest harbor seals, with Kenai reporting an average of about 13 per
year between 1992 and 2008 (Wolfe et al. 2008). According to Fall et
al. (1984), many of the seals harvested by hunters from these villages
were taken on the west side of the inlet during hunting excursions for
moose and black
[[Page 14937]]
bears (or outside SAE's lower Cook unit).
Although marine mammals remain an important subsistence resource in
Cook Inlet, the number of animals annually harvested are low, and are
primarily harbor seals. Much of the harbor seal harvest occurs
incidental to other fishing and hunting activities, and at areas
outside of the SAE's proposed seismic areas such as the Susitna Delta
or the west side of lower Cook Inlet. Also, SAE is unlikely to conduct
seismic activity in the vicinity of any of the river mouths where large
numbers of seals haul out.
SAE has identified the following features that are intended to
reduce impacts to subsistence users:
In-water seismic activities will follow mitigation
procedures to minimize effects on the behavior of marine mammals and,
therefore, opportunities for harvest by Alaska Native communities.
SAE 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 offshore activities SAE will consult with nearby
communities such as Nikiski, Tyonek, Ninilchik, Anchor point. SAE plans
to attend and present the program description to the different groups
listed in Section 3 prior to operations within those areas. During
these meetings discussions will include our project description, maps
of project area and resolutions of potential conflicts. These meetings
will allow SAE to understand community concerns, and requests for
communication or mitigation. Additional communications will continue
throughout the project. Meetings will also be held with Native
Corporation leaders to establish subsistence activities and timelines.
Ongoing discussions and meeting with federal and state agencies during
the permit process.
A specific meeting schedule has not been finalized, but meetings
with the entities identified in Section 3 will occur between December
2014 and March 2015.
SAE will document results of all meetings and incorporate to
mitigate concerns into the Plan of Cooperation (POC). There shall be a
review of permit stipulations and a permit matrix developed for the
crews. The means of communications and contacts list will be developed
and implemented into the project. The use of PSOs/MMO's on board the
vessels will ensure that appropriate precautions are taken to avoid
harassment of marine mammals.
If a conflict does occur with project activities involving
subsistence or fishing, the project manager will immediately contact
the affected party to resolve the conflict. If avoidance is not
possible, the project manager will initiate communication with the
Operations Supervisor to resolve the issue and plan an alternative
course of action. The communications will involve the Permits Manager
and the Anchorage Office of SAE.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determination
The project will not have any effect on beluga whale harvests
because no beluga harvest will take place in 2015. Additionally, the
proposed seismic survey area is not an important native subsistence
site for other subsistence species of marine mammals, and Cook Inlet
contains a relatively small proportion of marine mammals utilizing Cook
Inlet; thus, the number harvested is expected to be extremely low. The
timing and location of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor seals
may coincide with SAE's project, but because this subsistence hunt is
conducted opportunistically and at such a low level (NMFS, 2013c),
SAE's program is not expected to have an impact on the subsistence use
of harbor seals. Moreover, the proposed survey would result in only
temporary disturbances. Accordingly, the specified activity would not
impact the availability of these other marine mammal species for
subsistence uses.
NMFS anticipates that any effects from SAE's proposed seismic
survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga
whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be
short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in
behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the
authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to
meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or
avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3)
placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the
subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow
subsistence needs to be met. Based on the description of the specified
activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from SAE's proposed activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are three marine mammal species listed as endangered under
the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project
area: the Cook Inlet beluga whale, the western DPS of Steller sea lion,
and the Central North Pacific humpback whale. In addition, the proposed
action could occur within 10 miles of designated critical habitat for
the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS's Permits and Conservation Division
has initiated consultation with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources
Division under section 7 of the ESA. This consultation will be
concluded prior to issuing any final authorization.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
issuance of an IHA to SAE for the proposed oil and gas exploration
seismic survey program in Cook Inlet. The Draft EA has been made
available for public comment concurrently with this proposed
authorization (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will finalize the EA and either
conclude with a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement prior to issuance of the final
authorization (if issued).
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to
issue an IHA to SAExploration Inc. for taking marine mammals incidental
to a seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are
incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if
issued).
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for SAExploration Inc.
Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature
citations to help inform our final decision on SAE's request for an
MMPA authorization.
[[Page 14938]]
Incidental Harassment Authorization
SAExploration Inc. (SAE), 8240 Sandlewood Place, Anchorage, Alaska
99507, is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)), to harass small
numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities associated
with a marine geophysical (seismic) survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
contingent upon the following conditions:
1. This Authorization is valid from April 1, 2015, through December
31, 2015.
2. This Authorization is valid only for SAE's activities associated
with seismic survey operations that shall occur within the areas
denoted as Zone 1 and Zone 2 as depicted in the attached Figures 1 and
2 of SAE's January 2015 application to the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
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: See Table 1 (attached) for authorized species and
take numbers.
(ii) Pinnipeds: See Table 1 (attached) for authorized species and
take numbers.
(iii) If any marine mammal species are encountered during seismic
activities that are not listed in Table 1 (attached) for authorized
taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs)
greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms), then the Holder of
this Authorization must alter speed or course, power down 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 Table 1 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 Table 1 is met or exceeded, SAE 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) absent an amendment to this Authorization:
(a) Two airgun arrays, each with a capacity of 880 in\3\;
(b) A 440 in\3\ airgun array;
(c) A 10 in\3\ airgun;
(d) A Scott Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) transceiver; and
(e) A Sonardyne TZ/OBC 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 her
designee at (301) 427-8401.
6. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, or
her 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) at 301-427-8484 or to [email protected].
7. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements: The Holder of this
Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation and
monitoring requirements when conducting the specified activities to
achieve the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species
or stocks:
(a) Utilize a sufficient number of NMFS-qualified, vessel-based
Protected Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) (except during meal times
and restroom breaks, when at least one PSVO shall be on watch) to
visually watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source
vessels during daytime operations (from nautical twilight-dawn to
nautical twilight-dusk) and before and during start-ups of sound
sources day or night. Two PSVOs will be on each source vessel, and two
PSVOs will be on the support vessel to observe the exclusion and
disturbance zones. PSVOs shall have access to reticle binoculars (7x50)
and long-range binoculars (40x80). PSVO shifts shall last no longer
than 4 hours at a time. PSVOs shall also make observations during
daytime periods when the sound sources are not operating for comparison
of animal abundance and behavior, when feasible. When practicable, as
an additional means of visual observation, SAE's vessel crew may also
assist in detecting marine mammals.
(b) In addition to the vessel-based PSVOs, utilize a shore-based
station to visually monitor for marine mammals. The shore-based station
will follow all safety procedures, including bear safety. The location
of the shore-based station will need to be sufficiently high to observe
marine mammals; the PSOs would be equipped with reticle binoculars
(7x50) and long-range binoculars (40x80). 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) 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(d)(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.
(d) Establish a 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) ``exclusion zone'' (EZ) for cetaceans and pinnipeds respectively
before the full array (2400 in\3\) is in operation; and a 180 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) EZ before a single airgun (10
in\3\) is in operation, respectively.
(e) Visually observe the entire extent of the EZ (180 dB re 1
[mu]Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa [rms] for pinnipeds)
using NMFS-qualified PSVOs, for at least 30 minutes (min) prior to
starting the airgun array (day or night). If the PSVO finds a marine
mammal within the EZ, SAE must delay the seismic survey until the
marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSVO sees a marine mammal
that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSVO shall wait 30
min. If the PSVO sees no marine mammals during that time, they should
assume that the animal has moved beyond the EZ. If for any reason the
entire radius cannot be seen for the entire 30 min (i.e., rough seas,
fog, darkness), or if marine mammals are near, approaching, or in the
EZ, the airguns may not be ramped-up.
(f) 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
[[Page 14939]]
approximately 6 dB per 5-min period. During ramp-up, the PSVOs shall
monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, a power-down, or
shutdown shall be implemented as though the full array were
operational. Therefore, initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown
requires that the PSVOs be able to visually observe the full EZ as
described in Condition 7(e) (above).
(g) Alter speed or course during seismic operations if a marine
mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to
enter the relevant EZ. If speed or course alteration is not safe or
practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still appears
likely to enter the EZ, further mitigation measures, such as a power-
down or shutdown, shall be taken.
(h) Power-down or shutdown the sound source(s) if a marine mammal
is detected within, approaches, or enters the relevant EZ. A shutdown
means all operating sound sources are shut down (i.e., turned off). A
power-down means reducing the number of operating sound sources to a
single operating 10 in\3\ airgun, which reduces the EZ to the degree
that the animal(s) is no longer in or about to enter it.
(i) Following a power-down, if the marine mammal approaches the
smaller designated EZ, the sound sources must then be completely shut
down. Seismic survey activity shall not resume until the PSVO has
visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the EZ and is not likely
to return, or has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min for species
with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min
for species with longer dive durations (large odontocetes, including
killer whales and beluga whales).
(j) Following a power-down or shutdown and subsequent animal
departure, survey operations may resume following ramp-up procedures
described in Condition 7(g).
(k) Marine geophysical surveys may continue into night and low-
light hours if such segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the
entire relevant EZs can be effectively monitored visually (i.e.,
PSVO(s) must be able to see the extent of the entire relevant EZ).
(l) 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).
(m) If a beluga whale is visually sighted approaching or within the
160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound
source(s) shall be shut down until the animals are no longer present
within the 160-dB zone.
(n) Whenever aggregations or groups of killer whales and/or harbor
porpoises are detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance
zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound source(s) shall be
shut-down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB
zone. An aggregation or group of whales/porpoises shall consist of five
or more individuals of any age/sex class.
(o) SAE 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 April 15 and October 15 (to avoid
any effects to belugas in an important feeding and breeding area).
(p) Seismic survey operations involving the use of airguns and
pingers must cease if takes of any marine mammal are met or exceeded.
(q) The mitigation airgun will be operated at approximately one
shot per minute and will not be operated for longer than three hours in
duration during daylight hours and good visibility. In cases when the
next start-up after the turn is expected to be during lowlight or low
visibility, use of the mitigation airgun may be initiated 30 minutes
before darkness or low visibility conditions occur and may be operated
until the start of the next seismic acquisition line.
8. Reporting Requirements: The Holder of this Authorization is
required to:
(a) Submit a weekly field report, no later than close of business
(Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic
survey activities take place. The field reports will summarize species
detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting,
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine
mammals taken.
(b) Submit a monthly report, no later than the 15th of each month,
to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division for all months during which
in-water seismic survey activities occur. These reports must contain
and summarize the following information:
(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea
conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and
associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal
sightings;
(ii) Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and
behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity
(number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all
monitoring activities;
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of: (A) Pinnipeds that
have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation)
at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
and/or 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific
behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (B) cetaceans that have been
exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at
received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and/
or 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors
those individuals exhibited.
(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 this 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 seismic survey. The Technical Report will
include the following information:
(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; and
(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.
[[Page 14940]]
(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) SAE must immediately report to NMFS if 25 belugas are detected
within the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) disturbance zone during seismic
survey operations to allow NMFS to consider making necessary
adjustments to monitoring and mitigation.
9. (a) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity
clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by
this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious
injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or
entanglement), SAE 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, or her
designees by phone or email (telephone: 301-427-8401 or
[email protected]), the Alaska Regional Office (telephone: 907-271-
1332 or [email protected]), and the Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinators (telephone: 907-586-7248 or [email protected] or
[email protected]). 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 SAE to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
(b) In the event that SAE 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),
SAE will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, her
designees, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline (see contact
information in Condition 9(a)). 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 SAE to determine whether modifications in the activities
are appropriate.
(c) In the event that SAE 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), SAE shall
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, her designees, the NMFS
Alaska Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773), and the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators within 24 hours of the discovery (see contact
information in Condition 9(a)). SAE 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. SAE 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources National
Marine Fisheries Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Table 1--Authorized Take Numbers for Each Marine Mammal Species in Cook
Inlet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized
take in the
Species Cook Inlet
action area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)................. 158
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)...................... 7
Minke whale............................................. 1
(Balaenoptera acutorostra)..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli).................... 14
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas).................... 30
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)............................. 55
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)..................... 219
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnipeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)................... 542
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi).................. 1,223
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 16, 2015.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-06386 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P