[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12720-12744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04202]
[[Page 12720]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC374
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Survey in Cook Inlet, AK
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental take authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the Apache Alaska
Corporation (Apache) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental
to a proposed 3D seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, between March
2013 and March 2014.
DATES: Effective March 1, 2013, to March, 1, 2014.
ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the IHA and application may be
obtained by writing P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by
telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this notice may also be
viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the
aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian D. Hopper, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental taking of small numbers of marine
mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The authorization must
set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting
the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its
habitat, and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and
reporting of such takings. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as ``* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity
that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to,
adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an process by which
citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally
take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section
101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an
application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny the authorization.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].''
Summary of Request
NMFS received an application on June 15, 2012, from Apache for the
taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to a 3D seismic
survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. This is the second IHA
application NMFS has received from Apache for takes of marine mammals
incidental to conducting a seismic survey in Cook Inlet. On April 30,
2012, NMFS issued a one-year IHA to Apache for their first season of
seismic acquisition in Cook Inlet (77 FR 27720). On December 10, 2012,
NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 73434)
discussing the effects on marine mammals and making preliminary
determinations regarding a proposed IHA. The notice initiated a 30 day
public comment period, which closed on January 9, 2013. Except for the
location and the size of the survey area and the potentially earlier
commencement date for survey operations, the activities proposed for
the second survey season are essentially the same as those conducted
during the first season.
Apache's 3D seismic surveys would employ the use of two source
vessels. Each source vessel would be equipped with compressors and 2400
in\3\ air gun arrays, as well as additional lower-powered and higher
frequency survey equipment for collecting bathymetric and shallow sub-
bottom data. In addition, one source vessel would be equipped with a
440 in\3\ shallow water air gun array, which it can deploy at high tide
in the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m of water. The proposed survey
would take place in Cook Inlet. During the 2013 survey season, Apache
anticipates acquiring seismic data in an area that extends from just
south of Anchor Point along the east coast extending up to Point
Possession and along the west coast from the McArthur River up to south
of the Beluga river, in water depths of 0-128 m (0-420 ft). Apache's
planned area of seismic acquisition within this area is shown in Figure
1 below.
For the 2013 survey season, Apache intends to mobilize crews and
equipment in February 2013 in order to be ready to conduct marine
surveys between April and May 2013. Apache expects to complete its
survey by December 15, 2013. Impacts to marine mammals may occur from
noise produced from active acoustic sources (primarily air guns) used
in the survey.
Description of the Specified Activity
In 2010, Apache acquired over 300,000 acres of oil and gas leases
in Cook Inlet with the primary objective to explore for and develop oil
fields. In the spring of 2011, Apache conducted a seismic test program
to evaluate the feasibility of using new nodal (i.e., no cables)
technology seismic recording equipment for operations in the Cook Inlet
environment and to test various seismic acquisition parameters to
finalize the design for a 3D seismic program in Cook Inlet. The test
program took place in late March 2011 and results indicated that the
nodal technology was feasible in the Cook Inlet environment. Apache
proposes to conduct a phased 3D seismic survey program throughout Cook
Inlet over the course of three to five years. The first area surveyed--
and the subject of the IHA issued in April 2012--was located in mid-
Cook Inlet extending along the
[[Page 12721]]
west coast from the Big River up to south of the Beluga River, and on
the east coast from Salamantof on the Kenai peninsula to 4.4 miles
north of the Swanson River. In the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR
73434, December 10, 2012), NMFS described the second area to be
surveyed--and the subject of this IHA--as covering a lower portion of
Cook Inlet, but also including all of Area 1. Following the publication
of the proposed IHA, Apache clarified to NMFS that Area 2 includes all
of Area 1 in mid Cook Inlet and some of Area 3 to the north/northeast
of Area 1; however, survey operations in 2013 are expected to occur in
a smaller section of Area 2 (see Figure 1).
The survey operations are essentially the same as those that were
conducted in Area 1 under the IHA for the first seismic season. The
survey would again be conducted from multiple vessels. Apache employs
the use of two source vessels. Each source vessel is equipped with
compressors and 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays. In addition, one source
vessel is equipped with a 440 in\3\ shallow water air gun array, which
it can deploy at high tide in the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m of
water. Three shallow draft vessels support cable/nodal deployment and
retrieval operations, and one mitigation/chase vessel is used, which
also provides berthing for the Protected Species Observers (PSOs).
Finally, two smaller jet boats are used for personnel transport and
node support in the extremely shallow water of the intertidal area. For
additional information, such as vessel specifications, see Apache's
application.
The survey will take approximately 160 days to complete over the
course of 8-9 months. Apache anticipates conducting survey operations
24 hours per day. During each 24 hour period, seismic operations would
be active; however air guns would only be used for approximately 2.5
hours during each of the slack tide periods. There are approximately
four slack tide periods in a 24-hour day, therefore, air gun operations
would be active during approximately 10-12 hours per day, if weather
conditions allow.
NMFS outlined the description of the specified activities covered
by this IHA in a previous notice for the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434,
December 10, 2012). Except for the clarification noted above regarding
the size and scope of Area 2 and the timing of the survey, the
activities to be conducted have not changed between the proposed IHA
notice and this final notice announcing the issuance of the IHA. For a
more detailed description of the activity, including vessel and
acoustic source specifications, the reader should refer to the proposed
IHA notice (77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012), the IHA application, and
associated documents (see ADDRESSES).
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt of the Apache application and proposed IHA was
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73434).
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from
the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
the International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), the
Seldovia Village Tribe, the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, and one member of
the public. Following are their comments and NMFS's responses:
Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from taking
additional action on the IHA until it has received and reviewed more
specific information concerning the location and timing of Apache's
proposed action.
Response: We believe that Apache's application requesting
authorization to harass marine mammals incidental to seismic survey
operations in Cook Inlet contained sufficient information regarding the
location and timing of Apache's seismic survey to make the required
findings under the MMPA.
Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS require that Apache
not conduct seismic activities in the inlet until after May and use
aerial surveys or other means to confirm that the majority of beluga
whales have moved out of the proposed survey area before initiating
those activities.
Response: Beluga whales remain in Cook Inlet year-round, but
demonstrate seasonal movement within the Inlet; in the summer and fall,
they concentrate in upper Cook Inlet's rivers and bays, but tend to
disperse offshore and move to mid-Inlet in winter (Hobbs et al., 2005).
The available information indicates that in the winter months belugas
occur in deeper waters in mid-Inlet past Kalgin Island, with occasional
forays into the upper inlet, including the upper ends of Knik and
Turnagain Arms. The spatial dispersal and diversity of winter prey are
likely to influence the wider beluga winter range throughout the mid-
Inlet. Apache now expects to commence its seismic survey in April,
which would coincide with the time of year when belugas are dispersed
offshore in the mid-Inlet and away from river mouths. In the spring,
beluga whales are regularly sighted in the upper Inlet beginning in
late April or early May, coinciding with eulachon runs in the Susitna
River and Twenty Mile River in Turnagain Arm, and outside of the area
where Apache will be conducting seismic surveys at that time.
Therefore, NMFS believes that the timing and location for the
commencement of the seismic survey, as proposed, will largely avoid
areas and seasons that overlap with important beluga whale behavioral
patterns.
Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS explain how we
accounted for the effects of the proposed action in the context of all
the other risk factors that are or may be affecting Cook Inlet beluga
whales and inhibiting their recovery.
Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a
determination that the harassment incidental to a specified activity
will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of
marine mammals, and will not result in an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses.
Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' implementing regulations specify how to
consider other activities and their impacts on the same populations.
However, consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into the
negligible impact analysis via their impacts on the environmental
baseline (e.g., as reflected in the density/distribution and status of
the species, population size and growth rate, and ambient noise).
In addition, cumulative effects were addressed in the Environmental
Assessment and biological opinion prepared for this action, both of
which NMFS indicated would be completed prior to the issuance of an IHA
(77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012). These documents, as well as the
Alaska Marine Stock Assessments and the most recent abundance estimate
for Cook Inlet beluga whales (Shelden et al., 2012), are part of NMFS'
Administrative Record for this action, and provided the decision maker
with information regarding other activities in the action area that
affect marine mammals, an analysis of cumulative impacts, and other
information relevant to the determination made under the MMPA.
Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS encourage Apache to
use and expand data-sharing agreements with other entities to maximize
the utility of seismic data and
[[Page 12722]]
minimize the number of impacts of new seismic studies.
Response: We agree and have encouraged Apache to cooperate with
other interested parties to minimize the impacts of new seismic surveys
in the region. Currently, Apache works with other oil and gas operators
in the area to enter into cooperative agreements. Sometimes these
negotiations are successful, but at other times the companies cannot
reach an agreement acceptable to both parties. Apache will continue its
discussions with other operators in Cook Inlet to find opportunities to
joint venture in oil and gas operations, including seismic data
acquisition.
Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS correct the
estimated distance to the 190 dB threshold for the offshore surveys to
0.18 km.
Response: The maximum distance to the 190 dB threshold for the
channel surveys should be 0.18 km not 1.18 km. The information in Table
2 of the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012) is correct and
Table 4 should read 0.18 km not 1.18 km. NMFS regrets the unintentional
error and apologizes for any confusion caused by the discrepancy.
Comment 6: The Commission recommended that NMFS require that Apache
either amend its application to seek authorization for the maximum
number of marine mammals that may be taken or provide sufficient and
consistent justification for requiring fewer takes, particularly of
beluga whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor seals.
Response: To provide some allowance for the uncertainties, Apache
calculated both ``maximum estimates'' as well as ``average estimates''
of the numbers of marine mammals that could potentially be affected.
For a few marine mammal species, several density estimates were
available, and in those cases the mean and maximum estimates were
determined from the survey data. In other cases, no applicable density
estimate (or perhaps a single estimate) was available, so adjustments
were used to arrive at ``average'' and ``maximum'' estimates. The
species-specific estimation of these numbers is provided in Table 5 of
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December
10, 2012). NMFS has determined that the average density data of marine
mammal populations will be used to calculate estimated take numbers for
species commonly reported in the vicinity of seismic survey
operations--harbor seals and harbor porpoises--because using maximum
density numbers for these species will result in overestimates that do
not account for marine mammals avoiding the sound source before they
are in the harassment zones. For killer whales and Steller sea lions,
which have been documented in the past but whose occurrence is rare or
whose average densities are too low to yield a take number due to
extra-limital distribution in the vicinity of the proposed survey area,
NMFS used the maximum densities to calculate takes of these species.
For Cook Inlet beluga whales, NMFS has consulted with the beluga whale
experts at NOAA's National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), which
directed NMFS to a recently published habitat model developed for Cook
Inlet beluga whales that provides densities throughout the inlet based
on the data from aerial surveys (Goetz et al., 2012), and offered to
conduct an analysis that would apply the model to Apache's seismic
survey for the purpose of estimating beluga whale densities and takes.
Additional information on the habitat-based model and the results of
NMML's analysis are provided below in the Estimated Takes of Marine
Mammals and Basis for Estimating ``Take by Harassment'' sections of
this notice.
Comment 7: The Commission recommended that NMFS include harbor
porpoises as one of the species for which implementation of delay and
shutdown procedures are required when observers detect aggregations of
five or more animals approaching or within the 160 dB harassment zone,
based on studies reporting that harbor porpoises are particularly
sensitive to air gun sounds.
Response: We agree with the proposal from the Commission regarding
mitigation. These measures will be implemented if groups of five or
more harbor porpoises are seen approaching or within the 160 dB zone.
Comment 8: The Commission states that the proposed monitoring
measures do not appear adequate to monitor the disturbance (160 dB)
zone and determine whether the requested numbers of takes have been
exceeded. The Commission recommended that NMFS ensure that the
monitoring measures included in the authorization are sufficient to
account for all takes of marine mammals and require Apache to provide
timely reports of the numbers of marine mammals taken so that, if
necessary, surveys can be stopped before the authorized takes are
exceeded--the measures used should account not only for the marine
mammals observed, but also those marine mammals that are present but
not observed.
Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III) of the MMPA requires IHAs
to include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of
such taking by harassment. NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR
216.108(c) state that a monitoring program must, if appropriate,
document the effects (including acoustical) on marine mammals and
document or estimate the actual level of take. As the cited regulation
suggests, monitoring is not required to document all takes that may
occur. The monitoring measures for Apache's seismic surveys include
standard methods contained in IHAs for industry and research-related
seismic survey activities to monitor takings (and they are also used to
implement mitigation (i.e., the prescribed means of effecting the least
practicable impact)). Given the size of the estimated Level B
harassment zone, we acknowledge that some marine mammals within or
entering the zone may not be immediately detected. However, the suite
of required monitoring for this survey--vessel-based, shore-based, and
aerial--allows for sufficient monitoring of effects and level of take
(it also provides monitoring for purposes of triggering mitigation).
The results of the monitoring report for the 2012 survey support this
finding. Moreover, some of the required mitigation, namely the ramp-up
and use of a mitigation air gun at night, is designed to prevent more
serious types of take that could occur if a marine mammal were to be in
the safety zone undetected. NMFS acknowledges that monitoring at night
or in reduced visibility is more difficult, but observes that (1) the
great majority of Apache's 2012 survey occurred when full visual
monitoring was available (given the longer day during the main months
of operation), which is likely to be true for the 2013 survey as well,
and (2) prohibiting operations during nighttime and periods of lower
visibility would reduce operational flexibility and lengthen the survey
period, increasing the potential for interactions with marine mammals.
With respect to timely reporting, to better account for marine
mammal takes that occur during the survey and ensure that takes do not
exceed the amount authorized in the IHA, NMFS has included an
additional reporting requirement in the IHA that will require the
applicant to submit weekly and monthly reports to the Permits and
Conservation Division. These reports will contain information regarding
the species detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the
sighting,
[[Page 12723]]
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine
mammals taken. NMFS believes that the inclusion of a weekly and monthly
reporting requirement will allow both NMFS and Apache to regularly
track the number and nature of marine mammal takes, and ensure that
takes do not exceed what is authorized by the IHA. Apache must to
report to NMFS immediately if 25 belugas are detected in the Level B
harassment zone to allow us to consider making necessary adjustments to
monitoring and mitigation. NMFS will require that seismic survey
operations involving the use of air guns and pingers cease if 30 beluga
whales are detected in the Level B harassment zone.
Comment 9: The Commission recommended that NMFS provide a 30-day
public review and comment period that starts with the publication of
the notices in the printed edition of the Federal Register.
Response: Although NMFS requested that the notice of the proposed
IHA be available for review immediately upon filing with the Federal
Register, due to a clerical error, the public review and comment period
reflected the publication date of the notice; therefore, the public
review and comment period for the proposed IHA did, in fact, start with
publication in the Federal Register.
Comment 10: The Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Kenaitze
Indian Tribe support issuance of the IHA and appreciate Apache's
commitment to ensuring that activities in the Cook Inlet region result
in responsible resource development.
Response: NMFS appreciates the review conducted by the State and
Tribal natural resource managers and the continued collaboration and
cooperation between the State of Alaska and Apache.
Comment 11: Environmental NGOs commented that NMFS failed to
properly estimate take by adopting Apache's analysis that contains
errors in its density calculations.
Response: The revised density and take estimates are provided in
the Estimated Takes of Marine Mammals and Basis for Estimating ``Take
by Harassment'' sections of this notice.
Comment 12: Environmental NGOs commented that NMFS underestimated
the size of Apache's impact area by: (1) Relying on an outdated and
incorrect threshold for behavioral take; (2) disregarding the best
available evidence on the potential for temporary and permanent
threshold shift on mid- and high-frequency cetaceans and on pinnipeds;
and (3) failing to calculate take using in situ propagation analysis.
Response: The comment that NMFS uses an outdated and incorrect
threshold for behavioral takes does not include any specific
recommendations. NMFS uses 160 dB as the exposure level for calculating
Level B harassment takes for most species in most cases. This threshold
was established for underwater sound sources (except explosives and
tactical active sonar) based on measured avoidance responses observed
in whales in the wild. Specifically, the 160 dB threshold was derived
from data for mother-calf pairs of migrating gray whales (Malme et al.,
1983, 1984) and bowhead whales (Richardson et al., 1985, 1986)
responding to seismic air guns (e.g., impulsive sound source). We
acknowledge there is more recent information bearing on behavioral
reactions to seismic air guns, but those data only illustrate how
complex and context-dependent the relationship is between the two. See
75 FR 49710, 49716 (August 13, 2010) (IHA for Shell seismic survey in
Alaska; response to comment 9). Accordingly, it is not a matter of
merely replacing the existing threshold with a new one. NOAA is
developing relatively sophisticated new draft guidelines for
determining acoustic impacts, including information for determining
Level B harassment thresholds. The draft guidelines will undergo a
rigorous review that includes internal agency review, public notice and
comment, and peer review before any final product is published. In the
meantime, and taking into consideration the facts and available
science, NMFS is using the 160 dB threshold for estimating takes of
marine mammals in Cook Inlet by Level B harassment.
The comment that NMFS disregarded the best available evidence on
the potential for temporary and permanent threshold shift on mid- and
high-frequency marine mammals and pinnipeds does not contain any
specific recommendations. We acknowledge there is more recent
information available bearing on the relevant exposure levels for
assessing temporary and permanent hearing impacts. Again, NMFS will be
issuing new draft acoustic guidelines, but that process is not complete
so we did not use it to assign new thresholds for calculate take
estimates for hearing impacts. However, we did consider the information
and it suggests the current 180 and 190 dB thresholds are conservative
in that they likely overestimate potential for hearing impacts. See 75
FR 49710, 49715, 49724 (August 13, 2010) (IHA for Shell seismic survey
in Alaska; responses to comment 8 and comment 27). Moreover, the
required mitigation is designed to ensure there are no exposures to
those injury thresholds.
As for in situ propagation analysis, Apache plans to conduct a
Sound Source Verification (SSV) study prior to commencing seismic
survey operations in Area 2. If the results from the SSV study show
that the harassment zones are larger than anticipated, Apache will
adjust the zones and monitor based on the new information as needed.
Comment 13: Environmental NGOs comment that the proposed IHA fails
to properly evaluate the impacts of stress, the risk of stranding,
potential reduction in prey, effects of increased turbidity, and
cumulative impacts from other activities in Cook Inlet.
Response: NMFS provided a detailed discussion of the potential
effects of this action in the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434,
December 10, 2012) and believes the analyses and preliminary
determinations were appropriate. The comment does not provide any
specific recommendations or criticism regarding the sufficiency of
those analyses. The potential effects of this action are also
adequately addressed in NMFS's Environmental Assessment and Biological
Opinion (which is incorporated by reference herein).
See response to Comment 3 for information on NMFS' cumulative
effects analysis.
Comment 14: Environmental NGOs comment that the IHA fails to
justify adequately the specific level of take it would authorize,
particularly given its analysis showing average and maximum take
numbers that exceed the proposed authorization.
Response: See response to Comment 6.
Comment 15: Environmental NGOs comment that NMFS provides
inadequate justification for its small numbers and negligible impact
determinations.
Response: This general comment contained no specific criticism or
recommendations. NMFS believes the proposed and final IHA Federal
Register notices contain sufficient justification for both the small
numbers and negligible impact determinations. NMFS' conclusions
regarding small numbers and negligible impact are provided in the
Determinations section of this notice.
Comment 16: Environmental NGOs comment that NMFS has failed to
adequately consider the current beluga population level and trends, or
the fact that it is likely that subsistence use of whales will be
prohibited for many years into the future in its analysis
[[Page 12724]]
regarding whether the proposed survey will have an ``unmitigable
adverse impact'' on the subsistence harvest.
Response: Under NMFS MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR
216.103, unmitigable adverse impact means 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 meeting
subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammal 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. Currently there is no subsistence hunting
of Cook Inlet belugas authorized (73 FR 60976, October 15, 2008). There
can be no impacts on Cook Inlet beluga subsistence uses in the
immediate future because they are not permitted. Moreover, any takes
that occur from this IHA will not have impacts on future subsistence
hunts for belugas if and when they resume because the anticipated takes
are not expected to have any of the effects contemplated in NMFS'
definition (above) of unmitigable adverse impact. Apache did not
request and NMFS does not anticipate, nor is it authorizing, any Level
A harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga whales or takes by mortality
incidental to the seismic surveys. The required mitigation and
monitoring measures are designed to avoid exposing any marine mammals,
including Cook Inlet beluga whales, to sound levels that may result in
injury. For example, protected species observers will monitor the
marine mammal exclusion zone while a sound source is active and have
the authority to require power-downs or shut-downs to ensure that Level
A harassment takes do not occur. In the unlikely event that marine
mammals are exposed to potentially injurious levels of sound, the IHA
will require Apache to cease work and report the incident to NMFS.
Comment 17: Environmental NGOs comment that the mitigation measures
proposed for the Apache survey fail to meet the MMPA's ``least
practicable adverse impact'' standard, and provide a list of
approximately eight measures that NMFS ``failed to consider or
adequately consider.''
Response: NMFS provided a detailed discussion of proposed
mitigation measures and the MMPA's ``least practicable adverse impact''
standard in the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December 10,
2012), which are repeated in the Mitigation section of this notice. The
measures that NMFS allegedly failed to consider or adequately consider
are identified and discussed below:
(1) Seasonal exclusions around river mouths, including the Beluga
River: Due to the location of the 2013 seismic survey, NMFS has added a
10 mile (16 km) exclusion zone around the Susitna Delta (which includes
the Beluga River) to the IHA. This mitigation mirrors a measure in the
Incidental Take Statement for the 2012 and 2013 Biological Opinions.
Seismic surveys operations involving the use of air guns will be
prohibited in this area between April and October. (In addition, the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) prohibits the use of air
guns within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the mouth of any stream listed by the
ADF&G on the Catalogue of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing,
or Migration of Anadromous Fishes.) See additional explanation in
``Mitigation Measures Considered but not Required'' section, below.
(2) Use of advance aerial surveys to redirect activity if
sufficient numbers of belugas or other species are sighted: Safety and
weather permitting, aerial surveys will occur daily. Aerial surveys
will be required when operating near river mouths to identify large
congregations of beluga whales and harbor seal haul outs. In addition,
daily aerial surveys must be conducted when there are any seismic-
related activities (including, but not limited to, node laying/
retrieval or air gun operations) occurring north or east of a line from
Tyonek across to the eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook
State Recreation Area, Cook Inlet (roughly the southern-most point of
Corps defined Region 9). The purposes of these surveys is to mitigate
impacts and reduce incidental take by identifying the presence of Cook
Inlet belugas near the Susitna Delta and alert the vessels accordingly
of necessary actions to avoid or minimize potential disturbance, to
monitor the effects of the seismic program on Cook Inlet belugas and
their primary feeding and reproduction areas, and to ensure that any
displacement from the Susitna Delta region is temporary and would not
be likely to cause harm to whales by reducing their ability to feed.
This information allows for better planning by PSOs and assists in
better understanding of the movements of large groups of beluga whales
with respect to the tide. Moreover, aerial observations can be used to
locate rarely seen animals (e.g., gray whales) that are difficult to
track from the vessels.
(3) Field testing and use of alternative technologies, such as
vibroseis and gravity gradiometry, to reduce or eliminate the need for
air guns: Apache requested takes of marine mammals incidental to the
seismic survey operations described in the IHA application, which
identified air guns arrays as the technique Apache would employ to
acquire seismic data. It would be impractical for NMFS to require
Apache to make this kind of change to the underlying activity and is
beyond the scope of the request for takes incidental to Apache's
operation of air guns and other active acoustic sources.
(4) Independent determination and required use of the lowest
practicable source level in conducting air gun activity: This general
comment contained no specific recommendations. Apache determined the
array sizes during the test line surveyed in March 2011 and utilizes
the minimum source level necessary to image the sub-surface targets.
(5) Observance of a 10 knot speed limit for all vessels, including
supply vessels, employed in the activity: NMFS does not agree with the
recommendation that vessels observe a 10 knot speed limit. Stipulating
vessel speeds would severely hamper Apache's seismic survey, increase
the amount of time needed to complete the survey, and would not be
practicable. In any event, Apache has indicated that vessels typically
move at 2-4 knots during seismic surveys and NMFS requires speed and
course alterations when a marine mammal is detected outside the 160 dB
zone and, based on position and relative motion, is likely to enter the
zone.
(6) Limitation of the mitigation air gun to the longest shot
interval necessary to carry out its intended purpose: This general
comment contained no specific recommendations. Apache set the
mitigation gun interval to mimic the timing of the shot interval used
for the full array (approximately 24 seconds). NMFS believes that the
shot interval of the mitigation air gun is appropriate to carry out its
intended purpose.
(7) Immediate suspension of air gun activity, pending
investigation, if any beluga strandings occur within or within an
appropriate distance of the Area 2 survey: There is no evidence in the
literature that air gun pulses cause marine mammal strandings and the
sounds produced by air guns are quite different from sound sources that
have been associated with stranding events, such as military mid-
frequency active sonar. Nevertheless, the IHA requires Apache to
immediately cease activities
[[Page 12725]]
and report unauthorized takes of marine mammals, such as injury,
serious injury, or mortality. Activities cannot resume until NMFS is
able to review the circumstances of the unauthorized take, determine
what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further unauthorized
take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache may not resume activities until
notified by NMFS.
(8) Establishment of a larger exclusion zone for beluga whales that
is not predicated on the detection of cow-calf pairs: This comment does
not provide any justification for why the exclusion (safety) zone for
beluga whales (other than groups of five or more and cow-calf pairs)
should be expanded beyond the 180 dB zone. We not that prior to
commencing seismic survey activities in 2013, Apache will conduct
another sound source verification study to measure the distance to the
180/190 dB safety zone and to the 160 dB harassment zone. If the sound
source verification study reveals that the distance is greater than the
distances measures prior to the 2012 seismic survey, the zones and
monitoring will be expanded as needed. Apache is required to shut down
active sound sources if groups of five or more beluga whales, killer
whales, and harbor porpoises or beluga cow-calf pairs are observed
within or approaching the 160 dB zone.
Comment 18: Environmental NGOs comment that monitoring measures
should include passive acoustic monitoring superior to over-the-side
hydrophone, require aerial-based monitoring in areas other than river
mouths, and at least 2 ship-based PSOs per vessel on watch at all times
during daylight hours with a maximum of 2 consecutive hours on watch
and 8 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
Response: The passive acoustic monitoring plan for Apache's 2012
survey anticipated the use of a bottom-mounted telemetry buoy to
broadcast acoustic measurements using a radio-system link back to a
monitoring vessel. Although a buoy was deployed during the first week
of surveying under the 2012 IHA, it was not successful. Upon
deployment, the buoy immediately turned upside down due to the strong
current in Cook Inlet. After retrieval, the buoy was not redeployed and
the survey used a single omni-directional hydrophone lowered from the
side of the mitigation vessel. During the entire 2012 survey season,
Apache's PAM equipment yielded only six confirmed marine mammal
detections, one of which was a Cook Inlet beluga whale. The single Cook
Inlet beluga whale detection did not, however, result in a shutdown
procedure. Given the limited capability of this particular PAM
methodology for Apache's project in Cook Inlet (see Austin and Zeddies,
2012 for more information), as compared to visual monitoring methods,
including expanded daily aerial surveys, the bottom-mounted telemetry
buoy and omni-directional hydrophone are no longer considered
practicable, and will not be a component of the 2013 seismic survey.
The IHA requires aerial surveys when operating near river mouths.
In addition, NMFS has added the following monitoring measure: Safety
and weather permitting, aerial surveys must be conducted when there are
any seismic-related activities (including but not limited to node
laying/retrieval or airgun operations) occurring north or east of a
line from Tyonek across to the eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the
Captain Cook State Recreation Area, Cook Inlet (roughly the southern-
most point of Corps defined Region 9). Surveys are to be flown even if
the air guns are not being fired.
Vessel-based observers are stationed on three vessels with two PSOs
on the support vessel and one PSO on each of the two source vessels.
Due to space limitations onboard the source vessels, no more than one
PSO could be accommodated on each vessel. PSOs monitored for marine
mammals during all daylight hours prior to and during seismic survey
operations, unless precluded by weather (e.g., fog, ice, high sea
states). PSOs on the vessels rotated observation shifts every 4-6 hours
in order to better monitor the survey area, implement mitigation
measures, and avoid fatigue. In addition, vessel crews are be
instructed to assist with detecting marine mammals and implementing
mitigation measures.
Comment 19: The IAGC encouraged NMFS to review a recent peer-
reviewed scientific paper regarding the impacts of seismic surveys on
fish. They referred NMFS to a study by Lokkeborg et al. (2012) that
provides additional, updated information challenging the Engas et al.
(1993) assessment that seismic surveys have adverse impacts on
Norwegian fisheries.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and has reviewed the study
by Lokkeborg et al. (2012), which was published in the Canadian Journal
of Fisheries Aquatic Sciences on July 10, 2012. However, this does not
change the analysis provided in the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR
73434, December 10, 2012).
Comment 20: The IAGC encouraged NMFS to consider frequency
weighting in development of incidental take estimates.
Response: Frequency weighting takes into account that all marine
mammal species do not have identical hearing capabilities. To reflect
this, Southall et al. 2007 proposed that marine mammals be divided into
five functional hearing groups and subsequently recommended frequency
weighting functions for each of these groups. NMFS agrees that taking
into account frequencies that marine mammals hear is an important
consideration. For example, if a sound is entirely outside the hearing
range of a species, it is not considered to have the potential to cause
a significant response.
There are data to indicate that frequency weighting is an important
consideration associated with noise-induced hearing loss (Finneran and
Schlundt, 2009; Finneran and Schlundt, 2011). We are in the process of
reviewing and considering these data within our updated marine mammal
NOAA acoustic guidelines. Southall et al., 2007 recommended criteria
for onset of injury (i.e., permanent threshold shift) are presented
using a cumulative sound exposure level, which takes into account not
only the received level during exposure but also the duration of
exposure, as well as incorporating frequency weighting functions. In
situations where exposures of lower level but longer duration are
possible (which could be possible for resident populations or
population with a small range), there must be caution using the
Southall et al., 2007 criteria (i.e., noise-induced hearing loss my
occur at a lower level than shorter exposures of higher level but with
the same cumulative sound exposure level; Mooney et al., 2009, Finneran
et al., 2010).
For behavior, the relationship between severity of response and
frequency weighting is less clear and does not necessarily correspond
to the severity of behavioral response expected. Behavioral effects are
more challenging to predict since they often involve other variables
beyond detection (e.g. perception and cognition, contextual cues, and
previous experience). Despite most of the acoustic energy from seismic
activities occurring outside the best hearing range of odontocetes,
there are data showing that these species do behaviorally respond to
these types of activities in some contexts, although not necessarily in
a biologically significant way. Miller et al. (2005) indicates that
belugas in the Beaufort Sea may have responded (avoidance) to seismic
activity, although belugas may have already been in the
[[Page 12726]]
process of leaving the area due to their seasonal migration.
Comment 21: The IAGC commented that NMFS should provide
Environmental Assessments, Biological Opinions, and other documents for
review at the same time as the proposed IHA.
Response: In the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December
10, 2012), NMFS indicated that an Environmental Assessment (EA) was
being prepared and would be completed prior to NMFS' decision to issue
or deny the IHA. The Environmental Assessment and Biological Opinion
prepared for the IHA NMFS issued to Apache in April 2012 have been
available and posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The information in those publically available documents
provided a basis for the EA we prepared for the subject IHA. All
comments on the proposed IHA that were also relevant to the effects of
our action on the affected environment were considered.
Based on changed in the proposed action, namely the potential
survey area, we reinitiated section 7 consultation and a new biological
opinion was issued. The time needed to conduct consultations does not
allow for prior public review.
Comment 22: The Seldovia Village Tribe opposed the operation of
seismic air guns unless NMFS required that the activities cease when
marine mammals are within or approaching the Level A harassment
(injury) zone.
Response: As described in detail in the notice of the proposed IHA
(77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012), as well as in this document, NMFS
does not believe that Apache's seismic survey will cause injury or
mortality to marine mammals. NMFS requires that Apache establish,
monitor, and implement mitigation measures in an area where sound has
the potential to cause injury. NMFS mitigation or shutdown ``safety
radii'' for limiting marine mammal exposure to impulsive sources
typically correspond to the distances within which received sound
levels are greater than or equal to 180 dB for cetaceans and greater
than or equal to 190 dB for pinnipeds. These safety criteria are based
on an assumption that SPLs received at lower levels will not result in
injury or impair hearing. During Apache's survey, these ``safey zones''
will be monitored by PSOs for the presence of marine mammals and air
guns will be shut down if marine mammals are observed approaching or
within these zones. No injury and/or mortality of marine mammals is
expected, and none was authorized.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could
occur near operations in Cook Inlet include three cetacean species, all
odontocetes (toothed whales): Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas),
killer whale (Orcinus orca), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
and two pinniped species: Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and
Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). The marine mammal species that
is likely to be encountered most widely (in space and time) throughout
the period of the planned surveys is the harbor seal.
Of the five marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed
marine survey area, only Cook Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions
are listed as endangered under the ESA (Steller sea lions are listed as
two distinct population segments (DPSs), an eastern and a western DPS;
the relevant DPS in Cook Inlet is the western DPS). These species are
also designated as ``depleted'' under the MMPA. Despite these
designations, Cook Inlet beluga whales and the western DPS of Steller
sea lions have not made significant progress towards recovery. The Cook
Inlet population of beluga whales has been decreasing at a rate of 1.1
percent annually for nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2011). With
respect to Steller sea lions, results of aerial surveys conducted in
2008 (Fritz et al., 2008) confirmed that the recent (2004-2008) overall
trend in the western population of adult and juvenile Steller sea lions
in Alaska is stable or possibly in decline; however, there continues to
be considerable regional variability in recent trends. Pursuant to the
ESA, critical habitat has been designated for Cook Inlet beluga whales
and Steller sea lions. The proposed action falls within critical
habitat designated in Cook Inlet for beluga whales, but is not within
critical habitat designated for Steller sea lions. The portion of
beluga whale critical habitat--identified as Area 2 in the critical
habitat designation--where the seismic survey will occur is located
south of the Area 1 critical habitat where belugas are particularly
vulnerable to impacts due to their high seasonal densities and the
biological importance of the area for foraging, nursery, and predator
avoidance. Area 2 critical habitat is largely based on dispersed fall
and winter feeding and transit areas in waters where whales typically
appear in smaller densities or deeper waters (76 FR 20180, April 11,
2011).
Cetaceans
Beluga Whales--Cook Inlet beluga whales reside in Cook Inlet year-
round although their distribution and density changes seasonally.
Factors that are likely to influence beluga whale distribution within
the inlet include prey availability, predation pressure, sea-ice cover,
and other environmental factors, reproduction, sex and age class, and
human activities (Rugh et al., 2000; NMFS 2008). Seasonal movement and
density patterns as well as site fidelity appear to be closely linked
to prey availability, coinciding with seasonal salmon and eulachon
concentrations (Moore et al., 2000). For example, during spring and
summer, beluga whales are generally concentrated near the warmer waters
of river mouths where prey availability is high and predator occurrence
in low (Huntington 2000; Moore et al., 2000). During the winter
(November to April), belugas disperse throughout the upper and mid-
inlet areas, with animals found between Kalgin Island and Point
Possession (Rugh et al., 2000). During these months, there are
generally fewer observations of beluga whales in the Anchorage and Knik
Arm area (NMML 2004; Rugh et al., 2004).
Beluga whales use several areas of the upper Cook Inlet for
repeated summer and fall feeding. The primary hotspots for beluga
feeding include the Big and Little Susitna rivers, Eagle Bay to Eklutna
River, Ivan Slough, Theodore River, Lewis River, and Chickaloon River
and Bay (NMFS 2008). Availability of prey species appears to be the
most influential environmental variable affecting Cook Inlet beluga
whale distribution and relative abundance (Moore et al. 2000). The
patterns and timing of eulachon and salmon runs have a strong influence
on beluga whale feeding behavior and their seasonal movements (Nemeth
et al., 2007; NMFS 2008). The presence of prey species may account for
the seasonal changes in beluga group size and composition (Moore et
al., 2000). Aerial and vessel-based monitoring conducted by Apache
during the March 2011 2D test program in Cook Inlet reported 33 beluga
sightings. One of the sightings was of a large group (~25 individuals
on March 27, 2011) of feeding/milling belugas near the mouth of the
Drift River. Also on March 27, 2011, PSOs onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher
reported a group of seven beluga whales approximately 0.5 nm from the
vessel. Land-based PSOs were able to observe this group of beluga
[[Page 12727]]
whales for approximately 2.5 hrs. A single beluga whale was observed
near the mouth of the Drift River by the aerial-based monitors on March
28, 2011, prior to the seismic ramp-up period. If belugas are present
during the late summer/early fall, they are more likely to occur in
shallow areas near river mouths in upper Cook Inlet. For example, no
beluga whales were sighted in Trading Bay during the SSV conducted in
September 2011 because during this time of year they are more likely to
be in the upper regions of Cook Inlet. In the notice of the proposed
IHA (77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012), expected densities were
calculated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS between
2000 and 2012 (Rugh et al. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007; Shelden et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012; Hobbs et al. 2011). Those
densities were presented in Table 5 of the proposed IHA. During the
public comment period, in response to NMFS' request to apply a
correction factor to the beluga whale aerial survey data, Apache
submitted updated density estimates for beluga whales that applied a
correction factor based on previously published studies. For example,
in Hobbs et al. (2000), the correction for whales in missed groups was
1.015 (CV = 3%) for the years 1994-98 and 1.021 (CV = 1%) for the years
1999 and 2000. In all the subsequent annual survey reports (2001-2011),
the authors stated that the correction factors for that particular year
are within the range for 1999-2000. Therefore, a correction factor of
1.021 was applied to all of the highest number of sightings for each
year and calculated the densities/takes the same as for the previous
IHA. Using this correction factor, the estimated maximum take increased
from 11.98 to 12.2 (12), so there was no difference from the previous
uncorrected approach with respect to ``whole'' animals.
After receiving the new information from Apache, NMFS sent the
updated density estimates to beluga whale experts at the National
Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) for their review. NMML staff indicated
that Apache appeared to account for both on and off effort flight hours
(instead of just on-effort hours) and had not included 1,810 km of
coastline. NMML attempted to correct Apache's calculations by including
on-effort survey hours and 1,810 km of coastline, but determined that
the resulting take calculations for beluga whales were grossly
inaccurate and unreliable. NMML staff directed NMFS to a published
habitat model developed for Cook Inlet beluga whales that provides
densities throughout the inlet based on the data from aerial surveys
(Goetz et al., 2012), and agreed to conduct an analysis that would
apply the habitat-based model to Apache's seismic survey for the
purpose of estimating beluga whale densities and takes. Additional
information on the habitat-based model and the results of NMML's
analysis are provided below.
Killer Whales--In general, killer whales are rare in upper Cook
Inlet, where transient killer whales are known to feed on beluga whales
and resident killer whales are known to feed on anadromous fish
(Shelden et al., 2003). The availability of these prey species largely
determines the likeliest times for killer whales to be in the area.
Between 1993 and 2004, 23 sightings of killer whales were reported in
the lower Cook Inlet during aerial surveys by Rugh et al. (2005).
Surveys conducted over a span of 20 years by Shelden et al. (2003)
reported 11 sightings in upper Cook Inlet between Turnagain Arm,
Susitna Flats, and Knik Arm. No killer whales were spotted during
recent surveys by Funk et al. (2005), Ireland et al. (2005), Brueggeman
et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2008), or Prevel Ramos et al. (2006, 2008).
Eleven killer whale strandings have been reported in Turnagain Arm, six
in May 1991 and five in August 1993. Therefore, very few killer whales,
if any, are expected to approach or be in the vicinity of the action
area.
Harbor Porpoise--The most recent estimated density for harbor
porpoises in Cook Inlet is 7.2 per 1,000 km\2\ (Dahlheim et al., 2000)
indicating that only a small number use Cook Inlet. Harbor porpoise
have been reported in lower Cook Inlet from Cape Douglas to the West
Foreland, Kachemak Bay, and offshore (Rugh et al., 2005). Small numbers
of harbor porpoises have been consistently reported in upper Cook Inlet
between April and October, except for a recent survey that recorded
higher than usual numbers. Prevel Ramos et al. (2008) reported 17
harbor porpoises from spring to fall 2006, while other studies reported
14 in the spring of 2007 (Brueggeman et al. 2007) and 12 in the fall
(Brueggeman et al. 2008). During the spring and fall of 2007, 129
harbor porpoises were reported between Granite Point and the Susitna
River; however, the reason for the increase in numbers of harbor
porpoise in the upper Cook Inlet remains unclear and the disparity with
the result of past sightings suggests that it may be an anomaly. The
spike in reported sightings occurred in July, which was followed by
sightings of 79 harbor porpoises in August, 78 in September, and 59 in
October, 2007. It is important to note that the number of porpoises
counted more than once was unknown, which suggests that the actual
numbers are likely smaller than those reported. In addition, recent
passive acoustic research in Cook Inlet by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory have indicated
that harbor porpoises occur in the area more frequently than previously
thought, particularly in the West Foreland area in the spring (NMFS,
2011); however overall numbers are still unknown at this time.
Pinnipeds
Two species of pinnipeds may be encountered in Cook Inlet: Harbor
seal and Steller sea lion.
Harbor Seals--Harbor seals inhabit the coastal and estuarine waters
of Cook Inlet. In general, harbor seals are more abundant in lower Cook
Inlet than in upper Cook Inlet, but they do occur in the upper inlet
throughout most of the year (Rugh et al., 2005). Harbor seals are non-
migratory; their movements are associated with tides, weather, season,
food availability, and reproduction. The major haulout sites for harbor
seals are located in lower Cook Inlet and their presence in the upper
inlet coincides with seasonal runs of prey species. For example, harbor
seals are commonly observed along the Susitna River and other
tributaries along upper Cook Inlet during the eulachon and salmon
migrations (NMFS, 2003). During aerial surveys of upper Cook Inlet in
2001, 2002, and 2003, harbor seals were observed 24 to 96 km south-
southwest of Anchorage at the Chickaloon, Little Susitna, Susitna,
Ivan, McArthur, and Beluga Rivers (Rugh et al., 2005). During the 2D
test program in March 2011, two harbor seals were observed by vessel-
based PSOs. On March 25, 2011, one harbor seal was observed
approximately 400 m from the M/V Miss Diane. At the time of the
observation, the vessel was operating the positioning pinger and PSOs
instructed the operator to implement a shut-down. The pinger was shut
down for 30 minutes while PSO monitored the area and re-started the
device when the animal was not sighted again during the 30 minute site
clearing protocol. No unusual behaviors were reported during the time
the animal was observed. The second harbor seal was observed on March
26, 2011, by vessel-based PSO onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher
approximately 4260 m from the source vessel, which was operating the 10
in\3\ air gun at the time. The animal was well outside of the 160 dB
zone (330 m for the 10 in\3\ air gun) and no unusual behaviors were
observed. Many harbor seals were observed during the 3D seismic survey
[[Page 12728]]
conducted under the April 2012 IHA, especially when survey operations
were conducted close to shore. NMFS and Apache do not anticipate
encountering large haulouts of seals in Area 2--the closest haulout
site to the action area is located on Kalgin Island, which is
approximately 22 km away from the McArthur River--but we do expect to
see curious individual harbor seals; especially during large fish runs
in the various rivers draining into Cook Inlet.
Steller Sea Lion--Two separate stocks of Steller sea lions are
recognized within U.S. waters: An eastern U.S. stock, which includes
animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska; and a western U.S. stock, which
includes animals west of Cape Suckling (NMFS, 2008). Individuals in
Cook Inlet are considered part of the western U.S. stock, which is
listed as endangered under the ESA. Steller sea lions primarily occur
in lower, rather than upper Cook Inlet and are rarely sighted north of
Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. Haul-outs and rookeries are located
near Cook Inlet at Gore Point, Elizabeth Island, Perl Island, and
Chugach Island (NMFS, 2008). No Steller seal lion haul-outs or
rookeries are located in the vicinity of the proposed seismic survey.
Furthermore, no sightings of Steller sea lions were reported by Apache
during the 2D test program in March 2011. During the 3D seismic survey
in 2012, Steller sea lions were observed on three separate occasions
(approximately 4 individuals). Although Apache has requested takes of
Steller sea lions, Steller sea lions would be rare in the action area
during seismic survey operations.
Apache's application contains additional information on the status,
distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the
species under NMFS' jurisdiction mentioned in this document. Please
refer to the application for that information (see ADDRESSES).
Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment
Reports (SAR). The Alaska 2011 SAR is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2011.pdf.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
NMFS considered the potential effects of sound from air guns,
pingers, vessels, aircraft, and land-based explosives. In addition,
NMFS considered the effects of vessel operations and the potential for
ship strikes.
Potential Effects of Air Gun Sounds on Marine Mammals
The effects of sounds from air gun pulses might include one or more
of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral
disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-
auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in previous
NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly
variable, often depending on species and contextual factors, and can be
categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al., 1995):
(1) Tolerance
Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from air guns are
often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers.
Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances more
than a few kilometers from operating survey vessels often show no
apparent response. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed
sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured
received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. In
general, pinnipeds and small odotocetes (toothed whales) seem to be
more tolerant of exposure to air gun pulses than baleen whales.
Although various toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have
been shown to react behaviorally to air gun pulses under some
conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no overt
reactions. For example, the available evidence also indicates that Cook
Inlet beluga whales are less impacted behaviorally by anthropogenic
sounds compared to marine mammals in more pristine acoustic
environments (e.g., the Beaufort Sea) given the Cook Inlet population's
greater experience with anthropogenic sounds.
(2) Behavioral Disturbance
Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to
anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions are often shown as:
Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per
surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g.,
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification have the potential to be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Examples of
significant behavioral modifications include:
Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those
thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic
environment; and
Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007).
Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa to
estimate the onset threshold for marine mammal behavioral harassment
for impulse noises (such as air gun pulses). As explained below, NMFS
has determined that use of this threshold is appropriate for Apache's
IHA considering the scientific literature pertaining to this issue and
the evidence specific to the marine mammal species and populations in
question.
(3) Masking
Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes,
which differ among species, but include communication between
individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, and learning about
their environment (Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). Masking, or
auditory interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment
are louder than, and of a similar frequency as, auditory signals an
animal is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects
animals that are trying to receive acoustic information about their
environment, including sounds from other members of their species,
predators, prey, and sounds that allow them to orient in their
environment. Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the biological
functions of individual animals or groups of animals over long
distances and times, which could potentially have population-level
effects.
Masking occurs when noise and signals (that the animal utilizes)
overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the air gun noise
generated from the
[[Page 12729]]
proposed seismic surveys, noise will consist of low frequency (under
500 Hz) pulses with extremely short durations (less than one second).
Lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such
as surf and prey noise. There is little concern regarding masking near
the noise source due to the brief duration of these pulses and
relatively longer silence between air gun shots (approximately 12
seconds). However, at long distances (over tens of kilometers away),
due to multipath propagation and reverberation, the durations of air
gun pulses can be ``stretched'' to seconds with long decays (Madsen et
al., 2006), although the intensity of the noise is greatly reduced.
This could affect communication signals used by low frequency
mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause
increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009);
however, no baleen whales are expected to occur within the action area.
Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking by
adjusting their acoustic behavior by shifting call frequencies, and/or
increasing call volume and vocalization rates. For example, blue whales
are found to increase call rates when exposed to seismic survey noise
in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark, 2010). The North
Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) exposed to high shipping
noise increase call frequency (Parks et al., 2007), while some humpback
whales respond to low-frequency active sonar playbacks by increasing
song length (Miller et al., 2000).
(4) Hearing Impairment
Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et
al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002; 2005). TS can
be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is
unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing
threshold will recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Just like
masking, marine mammals that suffer from PTS or TTS could have reduced
fitness in survival and reproduction, either permanently or
temporarily. For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause
TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound.
Researchers have studied TTS in certain captive odontocetes and
pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al., 2007).
However, there has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone
permanent hearing damage, i.e., permanent threshold shift (PTS), in
free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of air gun pulses
during realistic field conditions.
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter,
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound
must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals,
TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days.
For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing
sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly
after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and
durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine
mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by
exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Available data on TTS in marine
mammals are summarized in Southall et al. (2007).
To avoid the potential for injury, NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that
cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater
noise at received levels exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms),
respectively. The 180 and 190 dB (rms) criteria are not considered to
be the levels above which TTS might occur. Rather, they are the
received levels above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics
specialists convened by NMFS before TTS measurements for marine mammals
started to become available, one could not be certain that there would
be no injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. NMFS
also assumes that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding
160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) may experience Level B harassment.
For toothed whales, researchers have derived TTS information for
odontocetes from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga. The
experiments show that exposure to a single impulse at a received level
of 207 kPa (or 30 psi, p-p), which is equivalent to 228 dB re 1 Pa (p-
p), resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz,
respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure
level within 4 minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). For the
one harbor porpoise tested, the received level of air gun sound that
elicited onset of TTS was lower (Lucke et al., 2009). If these results
from a single animal are representative, it is inappropriate to assume
that onset of TTS occurs at similar received levels in all odontocetes
(cf. Southall et al., 2007). Some cetaceans apparently can incur TTS at
considerably lower sound exposures than are necessary to elicit TTS in
the beluga or bottlenose dolphin.
In pinnipeds, researchers have not measured TTS thresholds
associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of
underwater sound. Initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse)
exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular)
incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes
exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Ketten et
al., 2001). The TTS threshold for pulsed sounds has been indirectly
estimated as being an SEL of approximately 171 dB re 1
[micro]Pa\2\[middot]s (Southall et al., 2007) which would be equivalent
to a single pulse with a received level of approximately 181 to 186 dB
re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), or a series of pulses for which the highest rms
values are a few dB lower. Corresponding values for California sea
lions and northern elephant seals are likely to be higher (Kastak et
al., 2005).
No cases of TTS are expected as a result of Apache's proposed
activities given the strong likelihood that marine mammals would avoid
the approaching air guns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels
high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS, and the mitigation
measures proposed to be implemented during the survey described later
in this document.
Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be
total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter,
1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of air gun
sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of air
guns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an air gun
array might incur at least mild TTS, there has been further speculation
about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to air
guns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Gedamke et al.,
2008). Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative
of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single
exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit
PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in
[[Page 12730]]
marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and
other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al., 2007). PTS might occur at a
received sound level at least several dBs above that inducing mild TTS
if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise
times. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary
assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as air
gun pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher
than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, and probably greater
than 6 dB (Southall et al., 2007).
Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during
the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid
the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other
marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to air guns,
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).
(5) Non-auditory Physical Effects
Non-auditory physical effects might occur in marine mammals exposed
to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory
physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in
mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological
effects, bubble formation, and other types of organ or tissue damage.
Some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially
susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed
sounds. However, there is no definitive evidence that any of these
effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large
arrays of air guns, and beaked whales do not occur in the proposed
project area. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral
avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some
odontocetes (including belugas), and some pinnipeds, are especially
unlikely to incur non-auditory impairment or other physical effects.
The distances to the 180 and 190 dB thresholds for the air gun arrays
proposed to be used by Apache are provided in Table 1.
Therefore, it is unlikely that such effects would occur during
Apache's proposed surveys given the brief duration of exposure and the
planned monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this
document.
(6) Stranding and Mortality
Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosive
can be killed or severely injured, and the auditory organs are
especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al., 1993; Ketten, 1995).
Air gun pulses are less energetic and their peak amplitudes have slower
rise times. To date, there is no evidence that serious injury, death,
or stranding by marine mammals can occur from exposure to air gun
pulses, even in the case of large air gun arrays.
However, in numerous past IHA notices for seismic surveys,
commenters have referenced two stranding events allegedly associated
with seismic activities, one off Baja California and a second off
Brazil. NMFS has addressed this concern several times, including in the
Federal Register notice announcing the IHA for Apache's first seismic
survey in 2012, and, without new information, does not believe that
this issue warrants further discussion. For information relevant to
strandings of marine mammals, readers are encouraged to review NMFS'
response to comments on this matter found in 69 FR 74905 (December 14,
2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 (August 24, 2006), 71
FR 49418 (August 23, 2006), and 77 FR 27720 (May 11, 2012).
It should be noted that strandings related to sound exposure have
not been recorded for marine mammal species in Cook Inlet. Beluga whale
strandings in Cook Inlet are not uncommon; however, these events often
coincide with extreme tidal fluctuations (``spring tides'') or killer
whale sightings (Shelden et al., 2003). For example, in August 2012, a
group of Cook Inlet beluga whales stranded in the mud flats of
Turnagain Arm during low tide and were able to swim free with the flood
tide. No strandings or marine mammals in distress were observed during
the 2D test survey conducted by Apache in March 2011 and none were
reported by Cook Inlet inhabitants. Furthermore, no strandings were
reported during seismic survey operations conducted under the April
2012 IHA. As a result, NMFS does not expect any marine mammals will
incur serious injury or mortality in Cook Inlet or strand as a result
of the proposed seismic survey.
Potential Effects From Pingers on Marine Mammals
Active acoustic sources other than the air guns have been proposed
for Apache's 2013 seismic survey in Cook Inlet. The specifications for
the pingers (source levels and frequency ranges) were provided in the
notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012). In
general, the potential effects of this equipment on marine mammals are
similar to those from the air guns, except the magnitude of the impacts
is expected to be much less due to the lower intensity of the source
(i.e., an animal would need to be within 25 m of the boat to be exposed
to received levels of sound above 160 dB, which is unlikely to occur
without triggering mitigation).
Potential Effects From Vessels and Vessel Noise on Marine Mammals
Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will
temporarily increase in the action area during Apache's seismic survey
as a result of the operation of eight vessels. To minimize the effects
of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, Apache will
follow NMFS' Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations and will
alter heading or speed if a marine mammal gets too close to a vessel.
In addition, vessels will be operating at slow speed (2-4 knots) when
conducting surveys and in a purposeful manner to and from work sites in
as direct a route as possible. Marine mammal monitoring observers and
passive acoustic devices will alert vessel captains as animals are
detected to ensure safe and effective measures are applied to avoid
coming into direct contact with marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS neither
anticipates nor authorizes takes of marine mammals from ship strikes.
Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor
porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may
react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or
were previously harassed by vessels (Richardson, 1995). Beluga whale
response to vessel noise varies greatly from tolerance to extreme
sensitivity depending on the activity of the whale and previous
experience with vessels (Richardson, 1995). Reactions to vessels
depends on whale activities and experience, habitat, boat type, and
boat behavior (Richardson, 1995) and may include behavioral responses,
such as altered headings or avoidance (Blane and Jaakson, 1994; Erbe
and Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; changes in vocalizations (Lesage et
al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in dive, surfacing, and
respiration patterns.
There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel
activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson, 1995).
Generally, sea lions in water show tolerance to close and frequently
approaching vessels and sometimes show interest in fishing
[[Page 12731]]
vessels. They are less tolerant when hauled out on land; however, they
rarely react unless the vessel approaches within 100-200 m (330-660 ft;
reviewed in Richardson, 1995).
The addition of eight vessels and noise due to vessel operations
associated with the seismic survey would not be outside the present
experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may
increase locally. Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and
the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the
other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity and
noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their
populations.
Potential Effects From Aircraft Noise on Marine Mammals
Apache plans to utilize the crew helicopter or small fixed-wing
aircraft to conduct aerial surveys in order to identify locations or
congregations of beluga whales and other marine mammals prior to the
commencement of operations. The aircraft should be used every day, but
must be used for surveys near river mouths. In addition, weather and
safety permitting, daily aerial surveys must be conducted when there
are any seismic-related activities (including but not limited to node
laying/retrieval or air gun operations) occurring north or east of a
line from Tyonek across to the eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the
Captain Cook State Recreation Area, Cook Inlet (roughly the southern-
most point of Corps defined Region 9). Surveys are to be flown even if
the air guns are not being fired. Aerial surveys will fly at an
altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) when practicable and weather conditions
permit. In the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft will try to
maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine
mammal(s). Aircraft will avoid approaching marine mammals from head-on,
flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft over the marine
mammals.
Studies on the reactions of cetaceans to aircraft show little
negative response (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, reactions
range from sudden dives and turns and are typically found to decrease
if the animals are engaged in feeding or social behavior. Whales with
calves or in confined waters may show more of a response. Generally
there has been little or no evidence of marine mammals responding to
aircraft overflights when altitudes are at or above 1,000 ft, based on
three decades of flying experience in the Arctic (NMFS, unpublished
data). Based on long-term studies that have been conducted on beluga
whales in Cook Inlet since 1993, NMFS expect that there will be no
effects of this activity on beluga whales or other cetaceans. No change
in beluga swim directions or other noticeable reactions have been
observed during the Cook Inlet aerial surveys flown from 600 to 800 ft.
(e.g., Rugh et al., 2000). By applying the operational requirements
discussed above, sound levels underwater are not expected to reach
NMFS' harassment thresholds.
The majority of observations of pinnipeds reacting to aircraft
noise are associated with animals hauled out on land or ice. There are
very little data describing the reactions of pinnipeds in water to
aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995). In the presence of aircraft,
pinnipeds hauled out for pupping or molting generally became alert and
then rushed or slipped (when on ice) into the water. Stampedes often
result from this response and may increase pup mortality due to
crushing or an increase rate of pup abandonment. The greatest reactions
from hauled out pinnipeds were observed when low flying aircrafts
passed directly above the animal(s) (Richardson et al., 1995). Although
noise associated with aircraft activity could cause hauled out
pinnipeds to rush into the water, there are no known haul out sites in
the vicinity of the survey site.
Therefore, the operation of aircraft during the seismic survey is
not expected to have effects that could cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. To
minimize the noise generated by aircraft, Apache will follow NMFS'
Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations found at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm.
Land-Based Explosives
The onshore component of the seismic survey involves the
underground detonation of explosive devices to acquire seismic data on
land. Because underwater sound levels associated with the land-based
explosives were previously unknown, in September 2011, Apache conducted
a SSV study, which found that marine mammals would not be exposed to
underwater sound levels that exceed the NMFS injury or harassment
thresholds.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
NMFS included a detailed discussion of the potential effects of
this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and
behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates, in the notice of
the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012). While NMFS
anticipates that the specified activity may result in marine mammals
avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to
habitat is temporary and site-specific. The main impact associated with
the activity would be temporarily elevated noise levels and the
associated direct effects on marine mammals.
Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli
associated with the activities, Apache and/or its designees will
implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Operation of Mitigation Air Gun at Night
Apache proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations.
Nighttime operations would only be initiated if a mitigation air gun
(typically the 10 in\3\) has been continuously operational from the
time that PSO monitoring has ceased for the day. The mitigation air gun
would operate on a longer duty cycle than the full air gun arrays,
firing every 30-45 seconds. Seismic activity would not ramp up from an
extended shut-down (i.e., when the air gun has been down with no
activity for at least 10 minutes) during nighttime operations and
survey activities would be suspended until the following day because
dedicated PSOs would not be on duty. At night, the vessel captain and
crew would maintain lookout for marine mammals and would order the air
gun(s) to be shut down if marine mammals are observed in or about to
enter the established safety radii. After a shut down during night
operations, seismic survey activities will be suspended until the
following day when the full safety zone is visible.
(2) Safety and Disturbance Zones
NMFS mitigation or shutdown ``safety radii'' for limiting marine
mammal exposure to impulse sources typically
[[Page 12732]]
correspond to the distances within which received sound levels are
>=180 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa for cetaceans and >=190
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa for pinnipeds. These safety criteria are
based on an assumption that SPLs received at levels lower than these
will not injure these animals or impair their hearing abilities.
Disturbance or behavioral effects to marine mammals from underwater
sound may occur from exposure to sound at lower SPLs, at distances
greater than the safety radii (Richardson et al., 1995). The
disturbance zone is defined as the area between the 180/190 dB
threshold and the 160 dB threshold where NMFS has determined that
harassment in the form of behavioral disturbance may occur.
The proposed survey would use air gun sources composed of two 2400
in\3\ air guns, a single 440 in\3\ air gun, and a single 10 in\3\ air
gun. Safety and disturbance radii for the sound levels produced by the
planned air gun configurations and pinger were estimated for the 2012
IHA issued for Area 1; however, distances to the 190, 180, and 160 dB
thresholds were measured in late April 2012 (see Table 1) and would be
used for mitigation purposes during the seismic survey activities until
the results from the 2013 SSV study are available.
Table 1--Distances to Sound Thresholds for Monitoring and Mitigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinger........................ 1 m 3 m 25 m
10 cui air gun................ 10 m 33 m 330 m
440 cui air gun............... NA NA NA
2,400 cui air gun (nearshore). 380 m 1400 m 9500 m
2,400 cui air gun (offshore).. 290 m 910 m 8700 m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the marine mammal monitoring radii described above,
pursuant to Alaska Department of Fish and Game restrictions, there
would be a 1.6 km setback of sound source points from the mouths of any
anadromous streams.
Apache also plans to use dedicated vessels to deploy and retrieve
the nodal recording system. Sounds produced by those vessels are not
expected to exceed 180 dB (rms). Therefore, mitigation related to
acoustic impacts from these activities is not required.
(3) Speed and Course Alterations
If a marine mammal is detected outside the applicable safety radius
and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter
the safety radius, changes of the vessel's speed and/or direct course
will be considered if this does not compromise operational safety. For
marine seismic surveys using large arrays, course alterations are not
typically possible. However, for the smaller air gun arrays planned
during the proposed site surveys, such changes may be possible. After
any such speed and/or course alteration is begun, the marine mammal
activities and movements relative to the survey vessel will be closely
monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the
safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius,
further mitigative actions will be taken, including a power down or
shut down of the air gun(s).
(4) Power-Downs
A power-down for mitigation purposes is the immediate reduction in
the number of operating air guns such that the radii of the 190 dB rms
and 180 dB rms zones are decreased to the extent that an observed
marine mammal(s) are not in the applicable safety zone of the full
array. During a power-down, one ``mitigation'' air gun, typically the
10 in\3\, continues firing. Operation of the 10 in\3\ air gun decreases
the safety radii to 10 m, 33 m, and 330 m for the 190 dB, 180 dB, and
160 dB, respectively. The continued operation of one air gun is
intended to (a) alert marine mammals to the presence of the survey
vessel in the area, and (b) retain the option of initiating a ramp up
to full operations under poor visibility conditions.
The array will be immediately powered down whenever a marine mammal
is sighted approaching close to or within the applicable safety zone of
the full array, but is outside the applicable safety zone of the single
mitigation air gun. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the safety
zone when first detected, the air guns will be powered down
immediately. If a marine mammal is sighted within or about to enter the
applicable safety zone of the single mitigation air gun, it too will be
shut down (see following section).
Following a power-down, operation of the full air gun array would
not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The
animal would be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it:
Is visually observed to have left the safety zone of the
full array, or
Has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case
of pinnipeds or small odontocetes, or
Has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case
of large odontocetes.
(5) Shut-Downs
The operating air gun(s) will be shut down completely if a marine
mammal approaches or enters the safety radius and a power-down is not
practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB
rms, as appropriate. In most cases, this means the mitigation air gun
will be shut down completely if a marine mammal approaches or enters
the estimated safety radius around the single 10 in\3\ air gun while it
is operating during a power down. Air gun activity will not resume
until the marine mammal has cleared the safety radius. The animal would
be considered to have cleared the safety radius as described above
under power down procedures.
(6) Ramp-Ups
A ramp-up of an air gun 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 air guns 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 air gun array slowly. NMFS requires the rate of ramp-up to be no
more than 6 dB per 5-minute period. Ramp-up is used at the start of air
gun operations, after a power- or shut-down, and after any period of
greater than 10 minutes in duration without air gun operations (i.e.,
extended shutdown).
A full ramp-up after a shut down will not begin until there has
been a
[[Page 12733]]
minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the safety zone by PSOs to
assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire safety zone must
be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If the
entire safety zone is not visible, then ramp-up from a cold start
cannot begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the safety 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 safety 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).
(7) Shut-downs for Aggregations of Whales, Harbor Porpoises, and Beluga
Cow-Calf Pairs
The following additional protective measures beluga whale cow-calf
pairs and aggregations of whales and harbor porpoises are required.
Specifically, a 160-dB vessel monitoring zone would be established and
monitored in Cook Inlet during all seismic surveys. Whenever an
aggregation of beluga whales, killer whales, or harbor porpoises (five
or more animals of any age/sex class), or any beluga whale cow-calf
pairs are observed approaching the 160-dB safety zone around the survey
operations, the survey activity would not commence or would shut down,
until they are no longer present within the 160-dB safety zone of
seismic surveying operations.
Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS
In addition to the mitigation measures discussed above, NMFS
requires the following protective measures:
(1) All vessels should reduce speed when within 300 yards (274 m)
of whales, and those vessels capable of steering around such groups
should do so. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
(2) Avoid multiple changes in direction and speed when within 300
yards (274 m) of whales; and
(3) When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops,
support vessels must adjust speed (increase or decrease) and direction
accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to whales.
(4) When aggregations of five or more harbor porpoises are observed
approaching the 160 dB zone around survey operations, the survey
activity will not commence or will shut down, until they are no longer
present within the 160 dB zone. (This was recommended in a comment from
the Commission).
(5) Apache must immediately report to NMFS if 25 beluga whales are
detected in the disturbance zone. If the number of detected takes is
meets or exceeds the amount authorized for any marine mammal species,
Apache must immediately cease survey operations involving the use of
active sound sources (e.g., air guns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
(6) Apache must not operate air guns within 10 miles (16 km) of the
mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River
to the Little Susitna River) between mid-April and mid-October (to
avoid any effects to belugas in an important feeding and potential
breeding area).
(7) Safety and weather permitting, aerial surveys shall be
conducted on a daily basis when there are any seismic-related
activities (including but not limited to node laying/retrieval or
airgun operations) occurring north or east of a line from Tyonek across
to the eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State
Recreation Area, Cook Inlet (roughly the southern-most point of Corps
defined Region 9). Surveys are to be flown even if the air guns are not
being fired.
Mitigation Measures Considered but Not Required
NMFS considered whether time/area restrictions were warranted.
Mirroring a requirement in the Incidental Take Statement for the
related Biological Opinion, NMFS has included an exclusion zone that
extends 10 miles (16 km) from the mean higher high water (MHHW) line of
the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River) to avoid
impacts to beluga in an important feeding and potential breeding area.
Between mid-April and mid-October, air guns may not be operated within
the exclusion zone. NMFS determined that such restrictions are not
necessary or practicable elsewhere in the 2013 survey area. Beluga
whales remain in Cook Inlet year-round, but demonstrate seasonal
movement within the Inlet; in the summer and fall, they concentrate in
upper Cook Inlet's rivers and bays, but tend to disperse offshore and
move to mid-Inlet in winter (Hobbs et al., 2005). The available
information indicates that in the winter months belugas are dispersed
in deeper waters in mid-Inlet past Kalgin Island, with occasional
forays into the upper inlet, including the upper ends of Knik and
Turnagain Arms. Their winter distribution does not appear to be
associated with river mouths, as it is during the warmer months. The
spatial dispersal and diversity of winter prey are likely to influence
the wider beluga winter range throughout the mid-Inlet. Apache now
expects to mobilize crews and equipment for its seismic survey in
February 2013, which would coincide with the time of year when belugas
are dispersed offshore in the mid-Inlet and away from river mouths. In
the spring, when survey operations are expected to start, beluga whales
are regularly sighted in the upper Inlet beginning in late April or
early May, coinciding with eulachon runs in the Susitna River and
Twenty Mile River in Turnagain Arm. Therefore, NMFS believes that the
timing and location of the seismic survey, with the exclusion zone
around the Susitna Delta, will avoid areas and seasons that overlap
with important beluga whale behavioral patterns.
NMFS also considered whether to require time area restrictions for
areas identified as home ranges during August through March for 14
satellite-tracked beluga whales in Hobbs et al., 2005. NMFS has
determined not to require time/area restrictions for these areas within
the phase 2 survey area. The areas in question within phase 2 are
relatively large areas in which belugas are dispersed. In addition,
data for 14 tracked belugas does not establish that belugas will not
appear in other areas--particularly during the periods of the year when
belugas are more dispersed in Cook Inlet. Time/area restrictions for
these areas thus would not yield a material benefit for the species.
Such restrictions also are not practicable given the applicant's need
to survey the areas in question and the need for operational
flexibility given weather conditions, real-time adjustment of
operations to avoid marine mammals and other factors. The suite of
other mitigation and monitoring measures will still apply.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
[[Page 12734]]
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered, NMFS has determined that the
mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance.
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.
Summary of 2012 Monitoring and Mitigation
Marine mammal monitoring was conducted in central Cook Inlet
between May 6 and September 30, 2012, which resulted in a total of
6,912 hours of observations. Monitoring was conducted from the two
seismic survey vessels, a mitigation vessel, four land platforms, and
an aerial platform (either a helicopter or small fixed wing aircraft).
PSOs monitored from the seismic vessels, mitigation vessel, and land
platforms during all daytime seismic operations. Aerial overflights
were conducted 1-2 times daily over the survey area and surrounding
coastline, including the major river mouths, to monitor for larger
concentrations of marine mammals in and around the survey site. Passive
acoustic monitoring (PAM) took place from the mitigation vessel during
all night time seismic survey operations and most daytime seismic
survey operations. During the entire 2012 survey season, Apache's PAM
equipment yielded only six confirmed marine mammal detections, one of
which was a Cook Inlet beluga whale. The single Cook Inlet beluga whale
detection did not, however, result in a shutdown procedure.
Six identified species and three unidentified species of marine
mammals were observed from the vessel, land, and aerial platforms
between May 6 and September 30, 2012. The species observed included
Cook Inlet beluga whales, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea
lion, gray whale, and California sea lions. PSOs also observed
unidentified species including a large cetacean, pinniped, and marine
mammal. The gray whale and California sea lion were not included in the
2012 IHA, so mitigation measures were implemented for these species to
prevent unauthorized takes. There were a total of 882 sightings and an
estimated 5,232 individuals (the number or individuals is typically
higher than the number of sightings because a single sighting may
consist of multiple individuals). Harbor seals were the most frequently
observed marine mammal at 563 sightings (~3,471 individuals), followed
by beluga whales with 151 sightings (~1,463 individuals), harbor
porpoises with 137 (~190 individuals), and gray whales with 9 sightings
(9 individuals). Steller sea lions were observed on three separate
occasions (~4 individuals) and California sea lions were observed once
(~2 individuals). No killer whales were observed during seismic survey
operations conducted under the 2012 IHA.
A total of 88 safety zone clearing delays, 154 shut downs, 7 power
downs, 23 shut downs followed by a power down, and 1 speed and course
alteration occurred under the 2012 IHA. Safety zone clearing delays,
shut downs, and shut downs followed by a power down occurred most
frequently during harbor seal sightings (n=61, n=110, n=14,
respectively), followed by harbor porpoise sightings (n=18, n=28, n=6,
respectively), and then beluga whale sightings (n=5, n=6, n=3,
respectively). Power downs occurred most frequently with harbor seal
(n=3) and harbor porpoise (n=3) sightings. One speed and course
alteration occurred in response to a beluga whale sighting. A total of
17 Level B harassment takes were detected from May 6 to September 30,
2012, including harbor porpoise (n=4) and harbor seals (n=13). No other
marine mammal species were detected in the Level B harassment zone.
There were no detected Level A harassment takes of either cetaceans or
pinnipeds during the 2012 seismic survey.
Monitoring Measures
Apache will provide marine mammal monitoring to implement the
mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring.
(1) Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals will be done by
experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities.
PSOs will monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near
the survey vessel during all daylight periods during operation and
during most daylight periods when air gun operations are not occurring.
PSO duties will include watching for and identifying marine mammals,
recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey
operations, and documenting take.
A sufficient number of PSOs will be required onboard the survey
vessel to meet the following criteria: (1) 100 percent monitoring
coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight; (2)
maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and (3) maximum of 12
hours of watch time per day per PSO.
PSO teams will consist of experienced field biologists. An
experienced field crew leader will supervise the PSO team onboard the
survey vessel. Apache currently plans to have PSOs aboard the three
vessels: the two source vessels (M/V Peregrine Falcon and M/V Arctic
Wolf) and one support vessel (M/V Dreamcatcher). Two PSOs will be on
the source vessels and two PSOs will be on the support vessel to
observe the safety, power down, and shut down areas. The vessel-based
observers will 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 air gun or pinger operations after an extended shut down.
Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers will be
individuals with experience as observers during seismic surveys in
Alaska or other areas in recent years.
The observer(s) will watch for marine mammals from the best
available vantage point on the source and support vessels, typically
the flying bridge. The observer(s) will scan systematically with the
unaided eye and 7x50 reticle binoculars. Laser range finders will be
available to assist with estimating distance. Personnel on the bridge
would assist the observer(s) in watching for marine mammals.
All observations will be recorded in a standardized format. Data
would be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The
accuracy of the data will be verified by computerized validity data
checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checks of the
database. These procedures will allow for initial summaries of the data
to be prepared during and shortly after the completion of the field
program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical,
geographical, or other programs for
[[Page 12735]]
future processing and achieving. When a mammal sighting is made, the
following information about the sighting will be recorded:
(A) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable),
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if
consistent), bearing and distance from the PSO, apparent reaction to
activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.),
closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
(B) Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, ice
cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
(C) The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the PSO
location.
The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water
temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun
glare will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation
watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change
in any of those variables.
(2) Visual Shore-Based Monitoring
In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, Apache will 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 will be equipped with pedestal
mounted ``big eye'' (20x110) binoculars. The shore-based PSOs will scan
the area prior to, during, and after the air gun operations, and will
be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs via radio to communicate
sightings of marine mammals approaching or within the project area.
(3) Aerial-Based Monitoring
When survey operations occur near a river mouth, Apache will
utilize the crew helicopter or a small fixed-wing aircraft to conduct
aerial surveys near river mouths prior to the commencement of air gun
operations in order to identify locations where beluga whales
congregate. In addition, aerial surveys shall be conducted on a daily
basis (weather and safety permitting) when there are any seismic-
related activities (including but not limited to node laying/retrieval
or air gun operations) occurring north or east of a line from Tyonek
across to the eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State
Recreation Area, Cook Inlet (roughly the southern-most point of Corps
defined Region 9). Surveys are to be flown even if the air guns are not
being fired. The types of helicopters currently planned for use by
Apache include a Bell 407, Bell UH1B, and ASB3. A twin-engine Islander,
or similar fixed-wing aircraft, may also be used to conduct aerial
surveys in lieu of helicopter. Weather and safety permitting, aerial
surveys will fly at an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event of a
marine mammal sighting, aircraft will attempt to maintain a radial
distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft will
avoid approaching marine mammals from head-on, flying over or passing
the shadow of the aircraft over the marine mammal(s). By following
these operational requirements, sound levels underwater are not
expected to meet or exceed NMFS harassment thresholds (Richardson et
al., 1995; Blackwell et al., 2002).
Based on data collected from Apache during its survey operations
conducted under the April 2012 IHA, NMFS believes that the foregoing
monitoring measures will allow Apache to identify animals nearing or
entering the 160 dB zone with a reasonably high degree of
effectiveness.
Reporting Measures
(1) Weekly Field Reports
During the proposed survey, the PSOs will prepare a report each day
summarizing the recent results of the monitoring program. The field
reports will summarize the species and numbers of marine mammals
sighted. These reports will be provided to NMFS and to the survey
operators on a weekly basis. At the end of each month, a summary of the
weekly reports will be submitted to NMFS.
(2) Technical Report
The results of Apache's 2013 monitoring program, including
estimates of ``take'' by harassment (based on presence in the 160 dB
harassment zone), will be presented in the ``90-day'' and Final
Technical reports. The Technical Report will include:
(a) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period,
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and
detectability of marine mammals);
(b) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare);
(c) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
(d) Analyses of the effects of survey operations;
Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could
affect detectability), such as:
Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state;
Closest point of approach versus survey activity state;
Observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey
activity state;
Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey
activity state;
Distribution around the source vessels versus survey
activity state; and
Estimates of take by harassment based on presence in the
160 dB disturbance zone.
(3) Comprehensive Report
Following the survey season, a comprehensive report describing the
vessel-based, shore-based, and aerial-based monitoring programs will be
prepared. The comprehensive report will describe the methods, results,
conclusions and limitations of each of the individual data sets in
detail. The report will also integrate (to the extent possible) the
studies into a broad based assessment of industry activities, and other
activities that occur in Cook Inlet, and their impacts on marine
mammals. The report will help to establish long-term data sets that can
assist with the evaluation of changes in the Cook Inlet ecosystem. The
report will attempt to provide a regional synthesis of available data
on industry activity in this part of Alaska that may influence marine
mammal density, distribution and behavior.
(4) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA,
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality
(e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), Apache will
immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinators. The report will 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;
[[Page 12736]]
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 will not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Apache to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache will not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
Apache will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators. The report will include the same information
identified in the paragraph above. Activities will be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work
with Apache to determine whether modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Apache will report the incident to
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email
to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the
discovery. Apache would provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral
harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed marine survey.
Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are associated with noise
propagation from the sound sources (e.g., air guns and pingers) used in
the seismic survey; no take is expected to result from the detonation
of explosives onshore, as supported by the SSV study, or from vessel
strikes.
Apache requests authorization to take five marine mammal species by
Level B harassment. These five marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet
beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas); killer whale (Orcinus orca);
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardsi), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus).
The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals was described
in detail in the Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine
Mammals section found earlier in this document and in the notice of the
proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012). The potential effects of
sound from the proposed seismic survey might include one or more of the
following: tolerance; masking of natural sounds; behavioral
disturbance; non-auditory physical effects; and, at least in theory,
temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson et al. 1995). The
most common and likely impact would be from behavioral disturbance,
including avoidance of the ensonified area or changes in speed,
direction, and/or diving profile of the animal. Hearing impairment (TTS
and PTS) are highly unlikely to occur based on the required mitigation
and monitoring measures that would preclude marine mammals being
exposed to noise levels high enough to cause hearing impairment.
For impulse sounds, such as those produced by air gun(s) and
pingers used in the seismic survey, NMFS uses a received level of 160
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa to indicate the onset of Level B
harassment. However, not all animals react to sounds at this level, and
many will not show strong reactions (and in some cases any reaction)
until sounds are stronger. Southall et al. (2007) provide a severity
scale for ranking observed behavioral responses of both free-ranging
marine mammals and laboratory subjects to various types of
anthropogenic sound (see Table 4 in Southall et al. (2007)). Tables 7,
9, and 11 in Southall et al. (2007) outline the numbers of low-
frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and pinnipeds in water,
respectively, reported as having behavioral responses to multi-pulses
in 10-dB received level increments. These tables illustrate that
although some studies have found moderate responses at these levels,
some show that more severe reactions did not occur until sounds were
much higher than 160 dBrms re 1[mu]Pa, while some also show
reactions to sounds lower than 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa.
However, Tables 9 and 11 for mid-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds,
respectively, do not report significant reactions to multiple pulse
sounds below 160 dB, except one study involving whales in the Beaufort
Sea--a less industrialized and sparsely populated area compared to Cook
Inlet. Beluga whales in that area are not as experienced with the types
and variety of sound sources as the belugas in Cook Inlet.
To estimate take by Level B harassment, Apache provided
calculations for the 160-dB isopleths and then overlaid those isopleths
with the density of marine mammals in the total area ensonified within
those isopleths over the time of the surveys. Apache provided a full
description of the methodology used to estimate takes by harassment in
its IHA application (see ADDRESSES), which is also provided in the
following sections. Following the publication of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA for Area 2, NMFS asked Apache to apply a
correction factor to take estimates for beluga whales in its analysis
(Hobbs et al., 2000). After receiving the new information from Apache,
NMFS sent the updated density estimates to beluga whale experts at
NOAA's National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) for their review. NMML
directed NMFS to a published habitat model developed for Cook Inlet
beluga whales that was not considered by Apache and provides densities
throughout the inlet based on the data from aerial surveys (Goetz et
al., 2012). NMML agreed to conduct an analysis that would apply the
habitat-based model to Apache's seismic survey for the purpose of
estimating beluga whale densities and takes. The results of NMML's
analysis using the habitat-based model are provided below.
Basis for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''
As stated previously, it is current NMFS policy to estimate take by
Level B harassment for impulse sounds at a received level of 160
dBrms re 1[mu]Pa. As
[[Page 12737]]
described earlier in this notice, impulsive sounds would be generated
by air gun arrays that would be used to obtain geological data during
the surveys. To estimate potential takes by Level B harassment in this
application, as well as for mitigation radii to be implemented by PSOs,
ranges to the 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa isopleths were estimated
at three different water depths (5 m, 25 m, and 45 m) for nearshore
surveys and at 80 m for channel surveys (Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2--Distances to Sound Thresholds for Nearshore Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance in
Water depth at Distance in Distance in the parallel
Threshold (dB re 1 [mu]Pa) source the onshore the offshore to shore
location (m) direction (km) direction (km) direction (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160............................................. 5 0.85 3.91 1.48
25 4.70 6.41 6.34
45 5.57 4.91 6.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
180............................................. 5 0.46 0.60 0.54
25 1.06 1.07 1.42
45 0.70 0.83 0.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
190............................................. 5 0.28 0.33 0.33
25 0.35 0.36 0.44
45 0.10 0.10 0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Distances to Sound Thresholds for the Channel Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water depth at Distance in the Distance in the
Threshold (dB re 1 [mu]Pa) source location broadside endfire
(m) direction (km) direction (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160....................................................... 80 4.24 4.89
180....................................................... 80 0.91 0.98
190....................................................... 80 0.15 0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Areas Ensonified to 160 dB for Nearshore Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearshore survey depth Area ensonifed to
classification Depth range (m) 160 dB (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow........................... 5-21 346
Mid-Depth......................... 21-38 458
Deep.............................. 38-54 455
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The areas ensonified to the 160 dB isopleth for the nearshore
survey are provided in Table 4. The area ensonifed to the 160 dB
isopleth for the channel survey is 389 km\2\.
The notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 73434, December 10, 2012)
describes Apache's estimated densities of marine mammals that may occur
in the areas where activities are planned, and areas of water that may
be ensonified by pulsed sounds to >=160 dB. The following paragraphs
provide information regarding Apache's approach to correcting the
density estimates for Cook Inlet beluga whales, NMML's review of the
corrected densities and recommendations, and NMFS revised estimates of
beluga whale densities and take estimates based on NMML's habitat-based
model.
Marine mammal densities near the planned activities in Cook Inlet
were estimated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS between
2000 and 2011 for Cook Inlet beluga whales (Rugh et al., 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al., 2008, 2009, 2010;
Hobbs et al., 2011). These surveys are flown in June to collect
abundance data for beluga whales, but sightings of other marine mammals
are also reported. Although these data are only collected in one month
each year, these surveys provide the best available relatively long-
term data set for sighting information in the proposed action area, but
do not correct for missed whales or account for seasonal variations in
distribution or habitat use of each species. To correct for missed
whales, Apache applied the correction factor of 1.015 (CV= 3%) for the
years 1994 to 1998 and 1.021 (CV=1%) for the years 1999 and 2000, which
was applied in Hobbs et al. (2000). In the subsequent annual aerial
survey reports (2001 to 2011), the authors state that the correction
factors are within the range for 1999 and 2000. Therefore, Apache
applied the correction factor of 1.021 to all of the highest number of
sightings for each year and calculated the densities and takes the same
as the previous IHA.
After receiving the new information from Apache, NMFS sent the
updated density estimates to beluga whale experts at NMML for their
review. NMML staff indicated that Apache's calculations appeared to
account for both on and off effort flight hours (instead of just on-
effort hours) and had not included 1,810 km of coastline. NMML
attempted to correct Apache's calculations by including on-effort
survey hours and 1,810 km of coastline, but the resulting take
calculations for beluga whales were grossly inaccurate and unreliable.
NMML staff directed NMFS to a published habitat model developed for
Cook Inlet beluga whales that provides densities throughout the inlet
based on the data from aerial surveys (Goetz et al., 2012). Moreover,
NMML staff agreed to conduct an
[[Page 12738]]
independent analysis that would apply the habitat-based model to
Apache's seismic survey for the purpose of estimating beluga whale
densities and takes. Additional information on the habitat-based model
is provided in Goetz et al., (2012). A summary of the habitat-based
model and the results of NMML's analysis are provided below.
NMML developed a 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 is a modified count model in which
there are two processes, one generating the zeros 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. NMML
created a digital representations of Apache's actual anticipated 2013
marine survey area (called a shapefile), which included a 9.5 km
``buffer'' to represent the approximate distance from the sound source
to the 160 dB isopleth. This is a smaller portion of Area 2, where
Apache plans on conducting operations during the 2013 survey. When NMML
staff applied their model of beluga density estimates to the 2013
survey area, they estimated that at a total of 21.5 belugas could taken
by Level B harassment (Figure 1). This estimate assumed a ``snap shot''
survey (i.e., that the entire survey area would be ensonified at once
rather than the sum of multiple track lines). In reality, the entire
area will not be completely ensonfied at once, and most of the survey
will occur where beluga density is extremely low or zero based on the
NMML habitat model. Calculating a take or exposure level for each
transect line separately and adding those up over the survey period
will likely be lower (or not significantly different) than if one
assumes the entire area is ensonfied at one time, particularly since
the operation will only be at the ``edges'' for a short time where the
beluga densities are highest and almost all of the estimate take occurs
based on NMML's calculation. For this and other reasons explained in
the notice, we believe 21.5 (22) takes is a reasonable estimate for the
survey.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 12739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE13.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Table 5--Summary of Apache's Marine Mammal Densities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (number/
km\2\)
Species ---------------------
Maximum Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (total number observed)............... 0.00644 0.00317
Harbor porpoise (total number observed)........... 0.00179 0.00006
Killer whale (total number observed).............. 0.00011 0.00001
Steller sea lion (total number observed).......... 0.00035 0.00011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12740]]
Fifteen species of marine mammals are known to occur in Cook Inlet,
but Apache only request takes by Level B harassment of five (Cook Inlet
beluga whales, killer whales, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and
Steller sea lions) that are most likely to be encountered during the
proposed survey. Two of the five species (Cook Inlet beluga whales and
western population of Steller sea lions) are listed as endangered under
the ESA.
Potential Number of Takes by Harassment
This subsection provides estimates of the number of individuals
potentially exposed to sound levels >= 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa
during seismic survey operations. Except for Cook Inlet beluga whales,
the estimates were calculated by multiplying the expected densities by
the anticipated area ensonified by levels >= 160 dBrms re 1
[mu]Pa by the number of expected days that will be subject to seismic
survey activities in the action area. As discussed above, NMML's
analysis multiplied beluga whale densities from their habitat-based
model by the entire 2013 survey area within Area 2. According to
section 2 in Apache's IHA application, a survey crew will collect
seismic data 10-12 hours per day over approximately 160 days over the
course of 8 to 9 months. Apache assumes that over the course of these
160 days, 100 days would be working in the offshore region and 60 days
would be working in the shallow, intermediate, and deep nearshore
region. Of those 60 days in the nearshore region, 20 days would be
spent working in each of the three depths. It is important to note that
environmental conditions (such as ice, wind, and fog) will play a
significant role in the actual number of operating days; therefore,
these are considered over estimates.
Except for Cook Inlet beluga whales, the number of estimated takes
by Level B harassment was calculated using the following assumptions:
The number of nearshore and shallow water survey days is
20 and daily acoustic footprint is 356 km\2\.
The number of nearshore and intermediate water depth
survey days is 20 and daily acoustic footprint is 468 km\2\.
The number of nearshore and deep water depth survey days
is 20 days and daily acoustic footprint is 455 km\2\.
The number of offshore survey days is 100 and daily
acoustic footprint is 389 km\2\.
The probability of sightings for harbor seals and Steller sea lions
is higher than what is anticipated because there are no haul-out sites
within the action area. These density estimates are skewed by the
numbers observed in large haul outs during aerial surveys. Seals in the
water usually travel in small groups or as single individuals;
therefore, although Table 3 indicates an average of 204 and maximum of
414 seals to be observed, it is highly unlikely that those number of
seals will actually be taken by harassment during the proposed seismic
survey.
Similarly, the number of actual takes by Level B harassment of
Steller sea lions is expected to be much lower than the average of
seven and maximum of 22. During the NMFS aerial surveys, no Steller sea
lions were observed in upper Cook Inlet. Less than five Steller sea
lions have been observed by the Port of Anchorage monitoring program,
and those observed have been juvenile animals (likely male). According
to Apache's final report submitted under the 2012 IHA, only four
Steller sea lions were observed during seismic survey operations
conducted between May 6 and September 30, 2012. Therefore, Apache
anticipates that there will be less than five Steller sea lions in the
proposed action area during the effective period of the IHA.
The average and maximum observations for harbor porpoise and killer
whales shown in Table 6 appear to be reasonable based on the NMFS
aerial surveys, although the actual number of animals is expected to be
low.
The NMML analysis found that a total of 21.5 Cook Inlet beluga
whales in the 2013 survey area within Area 2 could be taken by Level B
harassment over the course of the seismic survey. NMFS recognizes that
the NMML analysis has limitations, including calculating take based on
the expected project area rather than on a transect-by-transect basis,
relying on data from the June beluga surveys, and not accounting for
the fact that operations shut down if animals are observed within or
approaching the 180 dB safety zone. However, estimating the number of
belugas that actually will be exposed to 160 dB is difficult and
imprecise by nature and NMFS believes that the NMML estimate is
reasonably accurate. In addition, it is important to note that a
combination of factors--including extensive visual and acoustic
monitoring used throughout this project, particularly for sighting
beluga whales approaching the area--are expected to result in the
actual number of takes being no higher than (and likely, much lower
than) the NMML estimates. Furthermore, based on the time it took to
complete the previous year's survey, the total number of days surveying
that will actually occur is likely to be much lower than the 160 days
used to estimate total takes over the duration of the survey;
therefore, this take estimate is likely to be conservative. Finally,
NMFS will require that seismic survey operations involving the use of
air guns and pingers cease if 30 beluga whales are detected in the
Level B harassment zone and Apache must immediately report to NMFS if
25 belugas are detected in that zone to allow us to consider making any
necessary adjustments to monitoring and mitigation. As a result, due to
the actual number of days and hours Apache is likely to be operating
air guns near river mouths and taking into account the monitoring and
mitigation measures applicable when operating seismic survey equipment
near rivers, Apache expects the actual number of takes by Level B
harassment estimated for Cook Inlet beluga whales to be no higher than
(and likely much lower than) the numbers provided in the NMML analysis.
This conclusion is also supported by (1) the survey's avoidance of
areas of high beluga density in late spring and summer when most of
Apache's surveying effort is expected to occur; (2) the availability of
alternative, suitable beluga habitat outside of the areas ensonified to
160 dB; (3) the beluga's tendency to avoid local noise sources when
alternative, suitable habitat is available and they lack motivation to
remain; and (4) the experience of Apache's survey operations in 2012,
in which no observed takes of belugas occurred.
[[Page 12741]]
Table 6--Probability of Sightings per Species for Year 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow (356 Intermediate Deep (455 km\2\) Offshore (389 Total
km\2\) (458 km\2\) ------------------ km\2\) -----------------
------------------------------------ 20 days ------------------ 160 days
Species 20 days 20 days ------------------ 100 days -----------------
------------------------------------ ------------------
max avg max avg max avg max avg max avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seals.................................................. 45.9 22.6 59.0 29.0 58.6 28.9 250.5 123.4 414 203.8
Harbor porpoises.............................................. 12.8 0.4 16.4 0.6 16.3 0.6 69.7 2.4 115.2 4.0
Killer whales................................................. 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 4.3 0.6 7.2 1.0
Steller sea lions............................................. 2.5 0.8 3.2 1.1 3.2 1.0 13.6 4.5 22.5 7.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Take Conclusions
Cetaceans--Effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be
restricted to avoidance of an area around the seismic survey and short-
term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level
B harassment.''
The requested take numbers of individual cetaceans represent
varying proportions of the populations of each species in Cook Inlet
(Table 7). For Cook Inlet beluga whales, Apache requested 30 takes by
Level B harassment. The authorized number of 30 beluga whale takes is
based on NMML's estimate of 22 whales, which was adjusted by the
average group size of approximately 8 whales reported during the 2012
seismic survey to account for the fact that these whales often travel
in groups. This number is approximately 10 percent of the population of
approximately 312 animals (Shelden et al., 2012). NMFS will require
Apache to immediately contact the Office of Protected Resources if 25
belugas are detected in either the disturbance zone or the safety zone
to discuss the need to make modifications to the monitoring and
mitigation. If 30 belugas are detected in the disturbance zone, seismic
survey operations involving the use of air guns and pingers must cease.
For other cetaceans that might occur in the vicinity of the seismic
survey in Cook Inlet, the requested takes represent an even smaller
percentage of their respective populations. The requested takes of 10
killer whales and 20 harbor porpoises represent 0.89 percent and 0.06
percent of their respective populations in the proposed action area.
Pinnipeds--Two pinniped species may be encountered in the proposed
action area, but the harbor seal is likely to be the more abundant
species in this area. The number of takes requested for individuals
exposed to sounds at received levels >=160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa
during the proposed seismic survey are as follows: harbor seals (200)
and Steller sea lions (20). These numbers represent 0.69 percent and
0.12 percent of their respective populations in the proposed action
area.
Table 7--Authorized Number of Takes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Species authorized Population Percent of
takes abundance population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whales.................... 30 312 9.6
Harbor seals..................... 200 29,175 0.69
Harbor porpoises................. 20 31,406 0.06
Killer whales.................... 10 1,437 0.89
Steller sea lions................ 20 41,197 0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinations
Negligible Impact
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``* * *
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.'' In making a negligible impact determination,
NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1)
The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of
anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration
of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.
Given the required mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries
or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Apache's
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, and none are proposed to be
authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur
hearing impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological
effects. The small number of takes that are anticipated are expected to
be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment. Although it is
possible that some marine mammal individuals may be exposed to sounds
from seismic survey activities more than once, the duration of these
multi-exposures is expected to be low since both the animals and the
survey vessels will be moving constantly in and out of the survey area
and the seismic air guns do not operate continuously all day, but for a
few hours at a time totaling about 12 hours a day.
Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and
harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually
assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the air gun(s) than are
those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. When in the
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive
to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 6-12 mi (10-20 km) of
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al. 2005). However, as
noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed to anthropogenic
sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. Accordingly, NMFS does
not find this data determinative here. Also, due to the dispersed
distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during winter and the
concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from late April
through early fall, belugas would likely
[[Page 12742]]
occur in small numbers in the phase two survey area during the survey
period and few will likely be affected by the survey activity in a
manner that would be considered behavioral harassment. In addition, due
to the constant moving of the survey vessel, the duration of the noise
exposure by cetaceans to seismic impulse would be brief. For the same
reason, it is unlikely that any individual animal would be exposed to
high received levels multiple times.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned,
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term
changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B
harassment''. Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area
that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the
activity are expected to resume once the activity moves away from the
area. Only a very small portion of marine mammal habitat will be
affected at any time, and other areas within Cook Inlet will be
available for necessary biological functions. In addition, the area
where the survey will take place is not known to be an important
location where beluga whales congregate for feeding, calving, or
nursing.
Furthermore, while the estimated amount of take is not the
principal factor in NMFS' negligible impact analysis, the estimated
numbers of animals potentially exposed to sound levels sufficient to
cause Level B harassment are low percentages of the population sizes in
Cook Inlet, as shown in Table 7.
Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated
marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, and shut downs or power downs
when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges will further reduce
short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity.
In all cases, the effects of the seismic survey are expected to be
short-term, with no lasting biological consequence. Therefore, the
exposure of cetaceans to sounds produced by the phase two seismic
survey is not anticipated to have an effect on annual rates or
recruitment or survival.
Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed
marine surveys more than once during the time frame of the project.
However, as discussed previously, due to the constant moving of the
survey vessel, the probability of an individual pinniped being exposed
to sound multiple times is much lower than if the source is stationary.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects
on pinnipeds are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a
limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in
behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment''.
Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is
surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity
are expected to resume once the activity moves out of the area. Only a
very small portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any
time, and other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary
biological functions. In addition, the area where the survey will take
place is not known to be an important location where pinnipeds haulout.
The closest known haulout site is located on Kalgin Island, which is
about 22 km from the McArthur River. Therefore, NMFS has determined
that the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by the proposed
seismic survey in Cook Inlet is not expected to result in more than
Level B harassment and will not have an adverse effect on annual rates
of recruitment or survival. Therefore, it is anticipated to have no
more than a negligible impact on the animals.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed
previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat''
section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of
marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to
not affect 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.
Small Numbers
The requested takes authorized under the MMPA represent 9.6 percent
of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 312 animals
(Shelden et al., 2012), 0.89 percent of the combined Alaska resident
stock and Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering Sea stock of
killer whales (1,123 residents and 314 transients), and 0.06 percent of
the Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately 31,046 harbor porpoises. The
take requests presented for harbor seals represent 0.69 percent of the
Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately 29,175 animals. The requested
takes proposed for Steller sea lions represent 0.12 percent of the
western stock of approximately 41,197 animals. These take estimates
represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken
by Level B behavioral harassment if each animal is taken only once. The
number of marine mammals taken is small relative to the affected
species or stocks. In addition, while NMFS' small numbers determination
is based on the authorized amount of take, the mitigation and
monitoring measures (described previously in this document) in the IHA
are expected to prevent take from exceeding the amounts authorized and
likely to reduce even further any potential disturbance to marine
mammals.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS finds that the total taking from Apache's proposed
seismic survey in Cook Inlet will have a negligible impact on the
affected species or stocks. NMFS also finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the
affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for
Subsistence Uses
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the
authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the
availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use.
NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as:
an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to
reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a
harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to
abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence
users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals
and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine
mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates
Native
[[Page 12743]]
traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to younger
generations (NOAA 2007). However, due to dramatic declines in the Cook
Inlet beluga whale population, on May 21, 1999, legislation was passed
to temporarily prohibit (until October 1, 2000) the taking of Cook
Inlet belugas under the subsistence harvest exemption in section 101(b)
of the MMPA without a cooperative agreement between NMFS and the
affected Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs) (Public Law No. 106-31,
section 3022, 113 Stat. 57,100). That prohibition was extended
indefinitely on December 21, 2000 (Public Law No. 106-553, section
1(a)(2), 114 Stat. 2762). NMFS subsequently entered into six annual co-
management agreements (2000-2003, 2005-2006) with the Cook Inlet Marine
Mammal Council, an ANO representing Cook Inlet beluga hunters, which
allowed for the harvest of 1-2 belugas. On October 15, 2008, NMFS
published a final rule that established long-term harvest limits on the
Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be taken by Alaska Natives for
subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits harvest for a
5-year period (2008-2012), if the average abundance for the Cook Inlet
beluga whales from the prior five years (2003-2007) is below 350
whales. The next 5-year period that could allow for a harvest (2013-
2017), would require the previous five-year average (2008-2012) to be
above 350 whales.
There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in
Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives
who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of
the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna River. Consistent
with NMFS' implementing regulations, Apache met with the Cook Inlet
Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC)--a now dissolved ANO that represented
Cook Inlet tribes--on March 29, 2011, to discuss the proposed
activities and discuss any subsistence concerns. Apache also met with
the Tyonek Native Corporation on November 9, 2010 and the Salamatof
Native Corporation on November 22, 2010. Additional meetings were held
with the Native Village of Tyonek, the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, and Knik
Tribal Council, and the Ninilchik Traditional Council. According to
Apache, during these meetings, no concerns were raised regarding
potential conflict with subsistence harvest of marine mammals. Apache
has identified the following features that are intended to reduce
impacts to subsistence users:
In-water seismic activities will follow mitigation
procedures to minimize effects on the behavior of marine mammals and,
therefore, opportunities for harvest by Alaska Native communities; and
Regional subsistence representatives may support recording
marine mammal observations along with marine mammal biologists during
the monitoring programs and will be provided with annual reports.
Since the issuance of the April 2012 IHA, Apache has maintained
regular and consistent communication with federally recognized Alaska
Natives. The Alaska Natives, Native Corporations, and ANOs that Apache
has communicated with include: the Native Village of Tyonek; Tyonek
Native Corporation; Ninilchik Native Association; Ninilchik Traditional
Council; Salamatof Native Association; Knikatnu; Knik Native Council;
Alexander Creek; Cook Inlet Region, Inc.; the Native Village of
Eklutna; Kenaitze Indian Tribe; and Seldovia Native Assocaition. Apache
has shared information gathered during the seismic survey conducted
under the April 2012 IHA, and plans on hosting an information exchange
with Alaska Native Villages, Native Corporations, and other Non-
Governmental Organizations in the spring of 2013 where data from the
past year's monitoring operations would be presented.
Apache concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the size of the affected
area, mitigation measures, and input from the consultations Alaska
Natives should result in the proposed action having no effect on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. Apache and NMFS
recognize the importance of ensuring that ANOs and federally recognized
tribes are informed, engaged, and involved during the permitting
process and will continue to work with the ANOs and tribes to discuss
operations and activities.
On February 6, 2012, in response to requests for government-to-
government consultations by the CIMMC and Native Village of Eklutna,
NMFS met with representatives of these two groups and a representative
from the Ninilchik. We engaged in a discussion about the proposed IHA
for Area 1, the MMPA process for issuing an IHA, concerns regarding
Cook Inlet beluga whales, and how to achieve greater coordination with
NMFS on issues that impact tribal concerns. Following the publication
of the proposed IHA, NMFS contacted the local Native Villages to inform
them of the availability of the Federal Register notice and the opening
of the public comment period. During the public comment period, NMFS
received letters from two tribes--the Kenaitze Indian Tribe and the
Seldovia Village Tribe--which were addressed in the Comment and
Responses section of this notice.
NMFS anticipates that any effects from Apache's proposed seismic
survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga
whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be
short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in
behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the
authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to
meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or
avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3)
placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the
subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow
subsistence needs to be met. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the
proposed regulations will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the
ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area:
the Cook Inlet beluga whale and Steller sea lion. In addition, the
proposed action would occur within designated critical habitat for the
Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division
consulted with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under
section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of the first IHA to Apache under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, which analyzed the impacts in the
other areas where Apache's has proposed to conduct seismic surveys,
including Area 2. On May 21, 2012, NMFS' Alaska Region issued a revised
biological opinion, which concluded that the IHA is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the marine mammal species (such
as Cook Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions) affected by the
seismic survey or destroy or adversely modify designated critical
habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales. Although the biological opinion
considered the effects of multiple years of seismic surveying in the
entire project area as a whole, see figure 6 of the biological opinion,
to be cautious in light of the change in scope, NMFS' Permits and
Conservation Division requested reinitiation of consultation
[[Page 12744]]
under Section 7 of the ESA to address these changes in the proposed
action. A new Biological Opinion was issued on February 14, 2012. The
Biological Opinion determined that the issuance of IHA is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Cook Inlet beluga whales or
the western DPS of Steller sea lions, or destroy or adversely modify
Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. Finally, the Biological
Opinion includes an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for Cook Inlet
beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The ITS contains reasonable and
prudent measures implemented by terms and conditions to minimize the
effects of this take.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment to determine whether this
proposed activity will have a significant effect on the human
environment. This analysis was completed prior to the issuance the IHA
with NMFS' issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Authorization
NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization for the take
of marine mammals incidental to Apache's seismic survey in Cook Inlet,
Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: February 20, 2013.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-04202 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P