[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73434-73451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29740]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS received an application from Apache Alaska Corporation 
(Apache) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 
marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a proposed 3D seismic 
survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, between January 2013 and January 2014. 
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS requests 
comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to Apache to take, by Level B 
harassment only, five species of marine mammals during the specified 
activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January 
9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael 
Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is [email protected]. NMFS is not responsible for email 
comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments 
sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-
megabyte file size.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information 
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    An electronic copy of the application used in this document may be 
obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the 
contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting 
the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. 
Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, 
during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian D. Hopper, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot 
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to 
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of 
an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on 
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine 
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must 
either issue or deny the authorization.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].''

Summary of Request

    NMFS received an application on 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). Except for the 
location and the size of the survey area, the activities proposed for 
the second survey season are essentially the same as those conducted 
during the first season.
    The proposed 3D seismic surveys would employ the use of two source 
vessels. Each source vessel would be equipped with compressors and 2400 
in\3\ air gun arrays, 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, and during the second survey season 
Apache anticipates completing ~1,010 km\2\ of seismic acquisition 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

[[Page 73435]]

McArthur River up to the Beluga river, in water depths of 0-128 m (0-
420 ft).
    In Area 2, Apache intends to mobilize crews and equipment in 
January 2012 in order to be ready to conduct offshore/transition 
(intertidal) zone marine surveys in March-April 2013, but could 
commence sooner if weather conditions permit. Nearshore areas adjacent 
to uplands and offshore areas will be surveyed between April and 
September 2013. Impacts to marine mammals may occur from noise produced 
from active acoustic sources (primarily air guns) used in the surveys.

Description of the Specified Activity

    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 the next 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 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. The second 
area to be surveyed--and the subject of this IHA--would cover a lower 
portion of Cook Inlet, but also includes all of Area 1.
    The proposed operations are essentially the same as those that were 
conducted in Area 1 under the IHA for the first seismic season. The 
proposed operations would again be performed from multiple vessels. 
Apache would employ the use of two source vessels. Each source vessel 
would be equipped with compressors and 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays. In 
addition, one source vessel would be equipped with a 440 in\3\ 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 would 
support cable/nodal deployment and retrieval operations, and one 
mitigation/chase vessel would be used, which would also provide 
berthing for the Protected Species Observers (PSOs). Finally, two 
smaller jet boats would be used for personnel transport and node 
support in the extremely shallow water of the intertidal area. For 
additional information, such as vessel specifications, see Apache's 
application.
    Acquiring ~1,010 km\2\ would 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.

3D Seismic Surveys

    Seismic surveys are designed to collect bathymetric and sub-
seafloor data that allow the evaluation of potential shallow faults, 
gas zones, and archeological features at prospective exploration 
drilling locations. Data are typically collected using multiple types 
of acoustic equipment. During the surveys, Apache proposes to use the 
following in-water acoustic sources: two 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays; a 
single 440 in\3\ air gun array; a 10 in\3\ air gun; a Scout Ultra-Short 
Baseline (USBL) Transceiver; and a Lightweight Release (LR) USBL 
Transponder. Apache successfully measured the sounds produced by the 
air guns and pingers during a 2D test program conducted in March 2011 
and found levels to be consistent with the modeled mitigation threshold 
levels (180 dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds); therefore, a sound 
source verification study would not be included in the proposed 3D 
seismic survey.
    In addition, Apache plans to detonate 4 kg of Orica OSX Pentolite 
explosives onshore to acquire data. Except for the explosives, the 
operating frequencies and estimated source levels of the survey 
equipment are provided below.
(1) Airguns
    The 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays and the 440 in\3\ air gun array would 
be used to obtain geological data during the survey. The acoustic 
source level of the 2400 in\3\ air gun array was predicted using an air 
gun array source model (AASM) developed by JASCO. The AASM simulates 
the expansion and oscillation of the air bubbles generated by each air 
gun within a seismic array, taking into account pressure interaction 
effects between bubbles from different air guns. It includes effects 
from surface-reflected pressure waves, heat transfer from the bubbles 
to the surrounding water, and the movements of bubbles due to their 
buoyancy. The model outputs high-resolution air gun pressure signatures 
for each air gun, which are superimposed with the appropriate time 
delays to yield the overall array source signature in any direction. 
The 190, 180, and 160 dBrms re 1 [micro]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. The distances to 
these thresholds for the nearshore survey locations are provided in 
Table 1 and correspond to the three transects modeled at each site in 
the onshore, offshore, and parallel to shore directions. The distances 
to the thresholds for the channel survey locations are provided in 
Table 2 and correspond to the broadside and endfire directions. The 
areas ensonified to the 160 dB isopleth for the nearshore survey are 
provided in Table 3. The area ensonifed to the 160 dB isopleth for the 
channel survey is 389 km\2\.

                        Table 1--Distances to Sound Thresholds for the Nearshore Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Distance in
                                                    Water depth     Distance in     Distance in    the parallel
          Threshold (dB re 1 [micro]Pa)              at source      the onshore    the offshore      to shore
                                                   location  (m)     direction       direction       direction
                                                                       (km)            (km)            (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

[[Page 73436]]

 
190.............................................               5            0.28            0.33            0.33
                                                              25            0.35            0.36            0.44
                                                              45            0.10            0.10            0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 2--Distance to Sound Thresholds for the Channel Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Distance in     Distance in
                                                                    Water depth    the broadside    the endfire
                   Threshold (dB re 1 [mu]Pa)                        at source       direction       direction
                                                                   location  (m)       (km)            (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160.............................................................              80            4.24            4.89
180.............................................................              80            0.91            0.98
190.............................................................              80            0.15            0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Table 3--Areas Ensonified to 160 dB for Nearshore Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Area ensonifed
       Nearshore survey depth         Depth range  (m)      to 160 dB
           classification                                    (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow.............................              5-21               346
Mid-Depth...........................             21-38               458
Deep................................             38-54               455
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Pingers
    These instruments would be operated during survey operations to 
determine the exact position of the nodes after they have been placed 
on the seafloor. One device, the Scout Ultra-Short Baseline 
Transceiver, operates at frequencies between 33 and 55 kHz with a 
source level of 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m. The other device, an LR 
Ultra-Short Baseline Transponder, operates at a frequency of 35-50 kHz 
at a source level of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m. With respect to these 
two sources, Apache provided and NMFS relied on the distances to the 
Level B harassment thresholds estimated for the ``louder'' of the two; 
therefore, assuming a simple spreading loss of 20 log R (where R is 
radius), with a source level of 188 dB the distance to the 190, 180, 
and 160 dB isopleths would be 1, 3, and 25 m, respectively. Another 
technique for locating the nodes in deeper water is called Ocean Bottom 
Receiver Location, which uses a small volume air gun (10 in\3\) firing 
parallel to the node line.
(3) Detonations of Explosives
    The onshore areas would be surveyed using explosives as the sound 
source. Seismic surveys on land use ``shot holes'' that are drilled 
every 50 m along source lines and are oriented perpendicular to the 
receiver lines and parallel to the coast. At each source location, 
Apache would drill to the prescribed hole depth of approximately 10 m 
and load it with 4 kg of explosives. The hole would then capped with a 
``smart cap'' that makes it impossible to detonate the explosive 
without the proper detonator. During a 2D test program conducted in 
March 2011, Apache deployed acoustic recorders to measure underwater 
sound produced by land-based explosives; however, the resulting 
measurements were inconclusive and Apache conducted a sound source 
verification (SSV) study in September 2011 to characterize the 
underwater received sound levels and determine if marine mammal 
monitoring would be required for future onshore operations. The SSV 
study found that in-water noise generated from explosive detonations 
onshore did not rise to a level that would result in the harassment of 
marine mammals in the water.

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 1.5 
percent annually for nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2010). 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

[[Page 73437]]

critical habitat designated for Steller sea lions. The portion of 
beluga whale critical habitat--identified as Area 2 in the critical 
habitat designation--where the seismic survey will occur is located 
south of the Area 1 critical habitat where belugas are particularly 
vulnerable to impacts due to their high seasonal densities and the 
biological importance of the area for foraging, nursery, and predator 
avoidance. Area 2 is largely based on dispersed fall and winter feeding 
and transit areas in waters where whales typically appear in 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 
whales for approximately 2.5 hrs. A single beluga whale was observed 
near the mouth of the Drift River by the aerial-based monitors on March 
28, 2011, prior to the seismic ramp-up period. If belugas are present 
during the late summer/early fall, they are more likely to occur in 
shallow areas near river mouths in upper Cook Inlet. For example, no 
beluga whales were sighted in Trading Bay during the SSV conducted in 
September 2011 because during this time of year they are more likely to 
be in the upper regions of Cook Inlet. Expected densities were 
calculated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS between 
2000 and 2011 (Rugh et al. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 
2007; Shelden et al. 2008, 2009, 2010; Hobbs et al. 2011). Those 
densities are presented below in Table 5.
    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

[[Page 73438]]

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 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, one Steller sea lion was 
observed from the M/V Dreamcatcher on August 18, 2012, during a period 
when the air guns were not active. Although Apache has requested takes 
of Steller sea lions, Steller sea lions would be rare in the action 
area during seismic survey operations.
    Apache's application contains information on the status, 
distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the 
species under NMFS jurisdiction mentioned in this document. Please 
refer to the application for that information (see ADDRESSES). 
Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment 
Reports (SAR). The Alaska 2011 SAR is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2011.pdf.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    Operating active acoustic sources, such as air gun arrays, has the 
potential for adverse effects on marine mammals.

Potential Effects of Air Gun Sounds on Marine Mammals

    The effects of sounds from air gun pulses might include one or more 
of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-
auditory effects (Richardson et al. 1995). As outlined in previous NMFS 
documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, 
often depending on species and contextual factors, and can be 
categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al. 1995):
(1) Tolerance
    Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from air guns are 
often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. 
Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances more 
than a few kilometers from operating survey vessels often show no 
apparent response. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed 
sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured 
received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. In 
general, pinnipeds and small odotocetes (toothed whales) seem to be 
more tolerant of exposure to air gun pulses than baleen whales. 
Although various toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have 
been shown to react behaviorally to air gun pulses under some 
conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no overt 
reactions. For example, the available evidence also indicates that Cook 
Inlet beluga whales are less impacted behaviorally by anthropogenic 
sounds compared to marine mammals in more pristine acoustic 
environments (e.g., the Beaufort Sea) given the Cook Inlet population's 
greater experience with anthropogenic sounds.
(2) Behavioral Disturbance
    Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to 
anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions are often shown as: 
Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per 
surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal 
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such 
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., 
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification have the potential to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Examples of 
significant behavioral modifications include:
     Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those 
thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
     Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al. 2007).
    Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa to 
estimate the onset threshold for marine mammal behavioral harassment 
for impulse noises (such as air gun pulses). As explained below, NMFS 
has determined that use of this threshold is appropriate for 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,

[[Page 73439]]

generally occurs when sounds in the environment are louder than, and of 
a similar frequency as, auditory signals an animal is trying to 
receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals that are trying 
to receive acoustic information about their environment, including 
sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey, and sounds 
that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking these acoustic 
signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, groups of 
animals, or entire populations.
    Masking occurs when noise and signals (that the animal utilizes) 
overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the air gun noise 
generated from the proposed seismic surveys, noise will consist of low 
frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short durations (less 
than one second). Lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to 
affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There is little concern 
regarding masking near the noise source due to the brief duration of 
these pulses and relatively longer silence between air gun shots 
(approximately 12 seconds). However, at long distances (over tens of 
kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and reverberation, the 
durations of air gun pulses can be ``stretched'' to seconds with long 
decays (Madsen et al. 2006), although the intensity of the noise is 
greatly reduced.
    This could affect communication signals used by low frequency 
mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the 
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and cause 
increased 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 el al. 2000).
(4) Hearing Impairment
    Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for 
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et 
al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; 2005). TS can be 
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is 
unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing 
threshold will recover over time (Southall et al. 2007). Just like 
masking, marine mammals that suffer from PTS or TTS could have reduced 
fitness in survival and reproduction, either permanently or 
temporarily. Repeated noise exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. 
For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is 
inversely related to the duration of the sound.
    Researchers have studied TTS in certain captive odontocetes and 
pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al., 2007). 
However, there has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone 
permanent hearing damage, i.e., permanent threshold shift (PTS), in 
free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses 
during realistic field conditions.
    Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing 
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound 
must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, 
TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. 
For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing 
sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly 
after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and 
durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine 
mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by 
exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Available data on TTS in marine 
mammals are summarized in Southall et al. (2007).
    To 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 airgun sound that 
elicited onset of TTS was lower (Lucke et al., 2009). If these results 
from a single animal are representative, it is inappropriate to assume 
that onset of TTS occurs at similar received levels in all odontocetes 
(cf. Southall et al., 2007). Some cetaceans apparently can incur TTS at 
considerably lower sound exposures than are necessary to elicit TTS in 
the beluga or bottlenose dolphin.
    In pinnipeds, researchers have not measured TTS thresholds 
associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of 
underwater sound. Initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse) 
exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular) 
incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes 
exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Ketten et 
al., 2001). The TTS threshold for pulsed sounds has been indirectly 
estimated as being an SEL of approximately 171 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa\2\[middot]s (Southall et al., 2007) which would be equivalent 
to a single pulse with a received level of approximately 181 to 186 dB 
re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), or a series of pulses for which the highest rms 
values are a few dB lower. Corresponding values for California sea 
lions and northern elephant seals are likely to be higher (Kastak et 
al., 2005).
    No cases of TTS are expected as a result of 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

[[Page 73440]]

(Kryter, 1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses 
of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large 
arrays of airguns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to 
an airgun array might incur at least mild TTS, there has been further 
speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very 
close to airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; 
Gedamke et al., 2008). Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are 
not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some 
cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset 
might elicit PTS.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and 
other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al., 2007). PTS might occur at a 
received sound level at least several dBs above that inducing mild TTS 
if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise 
times. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 
assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as airgun 
pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than 
the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, and probably greater than 6 
dB (Southall et al., 2007).
    Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared 
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during 
the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid 
the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other 
marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but 
their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as 
those of cetaceans, and occasionally they seem to be attracted to 
operating seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010).
(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 array 
proposed to be used by Apache are provided above in Tables 1 and 2.
    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 airguns have been proposed 
for Apache's 2013 seismic survey in Cook Inlet. The specifications for 
the pingers (source levels and frequency ranges) were provided earlier 
in this document. In general, the potential effects of this equipment 
on marine mammals are similar to those from the airguns, except the 
magnitude of the impacts is expected to be much less due to the lower 
intensity of the source.

Potential Effects From Vessels and Vessel Noise on Marine Mammals

    Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will 
temporarily increase in the action area during 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

[[Page 73441]]

include behavioral responses, such as altered headings or avoidance 
(Blane and Jaakson, 1994; Erbe and Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; 
changes in vocalizations (Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); 
and changes in dive, surfacing, and respiration patterns.
    There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel 
activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson, 1995). 
Generally, sea lions in water show tolerance to close and frequently 
approaching vessels and sometimes show interest in fishing vessels. 
They are less tolerant when hauled out on land; however, they rarely 
react unless the vessel approaches within 100-200 m (330-660 ft; 
reviewed in Richardson, 1995).
    The addition of 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 to conduct aerial 
surveys near river mouths in order to identify locations or 
congregations of beluga whales and other marine mammals prior to the 
commencement of operations. The helicopter will not be used every day, 
but will be used for surveys near river mouths. Aerial surveys will fly 
at an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) when practicable and weather 
conditions permit. In the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft 
will try to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the 
marine mammal(s). Aircraft will avoid approaching marine mammals from 
head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft over the 
marine mammals.
    Studies on the reactions of cetaceans to aircraft show little 
negative response (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, reactions 
range from sudden dives and turns and are typically found to decrease 
if the animals are engaged in feeding or social behavior. Whales with 
calves or in confined waters may show more of a response. Generally 
there has been little or no evidence of marine mammals responding to 
aircraft overflights when altitudes are at or above 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

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other 
marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by 
airguns and other active acoustic sources. However, other potential 
impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also 
possible and are discussed below.

Potential Impacts on Prey Species

    With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to 
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson 
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the 
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially 
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the 
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
    The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior 
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to 
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the 
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold 
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition 
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of 
sound rather than a continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a 
quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity 
rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level.
    Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen 
et al., 1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) have shown that fish react 
when the sound from the engines and propeller exceeds a certain level. 
Avoidance reactions have been observed in fish such as cod and herring 
when vessels approached close enough that received sound levels are 110 
dB to 130 dB (Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and Godo, 1990; Ona and 
Toresen, 1988). However, other researchers have found that fish such as 
polar cod, herring, and capeline are often attracted to vessels 
(apparently by the noise) and swim toward the vessel (Rostad et al., 
2006). Typical sound source levels of vessel noise in the audible range 
for fish are 150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 1995).

[[Page 73442]]

Potential Impacts to the Benthic Environment

    Apache's seismic survey requires the deployment of a submersible 
recording system in the inter-tidal and marine zones. An autonomous 
``nodal'' (i.e., no cables) system would be placed on the seafloor by 
specific vessels in lines parallel to each other with a node line 
spacing of 402 m. Each nodal ``patch'' would have six to eight node 
lines parallel to each other. The lines generally run perpendicular to 
the shoreline. An entire patch would be placed on the seafloor prior to 
air gun activity. As the patches are surveyed, the node lines would be 
moved either side to side or inline to the next location. Placement and 
retrieval of the nodes may cause temporary and localized increases in 
turbidity on the seafloor. The substrate of Cook Inlet consists of 
glacial silt, clay, cobbles, pebbles, and sand (Sharma and Burrell, 
1970). Sediments like sand and cobble dissipate quickly when suspended, 
but finer materials like clay and silt can create thicker plumes that 
may harm fish; however, the turbidity created by placing and removing 
nodes on the seafloor would settle to background levels within minutes 
after the cessation of activity.
    In addition, seismic noise will radiate throughout the water column 
from air guns and pingers until is dissipates to background levels. No 
studies have demonstrated that seismic noise affects the life stages, 
condition, or amount of food resources (fish, invertebrates, eggs) used 
by marine mammals, except when exposed to sound levels within a few 
meters of the seismic source or in few very isolated cases. Where fish 
or invertebrates did respond to seismic noise, the effects were 
temporary and of short duration. Consequently, disturbance to fish 
species due to the activities associated with the seismic survey (i.e, 
placement and retrieval of nodes and noise from sound sources) would be 
short term and fish would be expected to return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once seismic survey activities cease.
    Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed activity is not 
expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
their populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
    For the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Apache worked with 
NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the 
potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity as a result 
of the survey activities.

Mitigation Measures Proposed in Apache's IHA Application

    For the proposed mitigation measures, Apache listed the following 
protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey in Cook Inlet.
(1) Operation of Mitigation Air Gun at Night
    Apache proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations. 
Nighttime operations would only be initiated if a mitigation air gun 
(typically the 10 in\3\) has been continuously operational from the 
time that PSO monitoring has ceased for the day. The mitigation airgun 
would operate on a longer duty cycle than the full airgun arrays, 
firing every 30-45 seconds. Seismic activity would not ramp up from an 
extended shut-down (i.e., when the airgun has been down with no 
activity for at least 10 minutes) during nighttime operations and 
survey activities would be suspended until the following day because 
dedicated PSOs would not be on duty and any unseen animals may be 
exposed to injurious levels of sound from the full array. At night, the 
vessel captain and crew would maintain lookout for marine mammals and 
would order the airgun(s) to be shut down if marine mammals are 
observed in or about to enter the established safety radii.
 (2) Safety and Disturbance Zones
    NMFS mitigation or shutdown ``safety radii'' for limiting marine 
mammal exposure to impulse sources typically 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 airgun sources composed of two 2400 
in\3\ airguns, a single 440 in\3\ airgun, and a single 10 in\3\ airgun. 
Safety and disturbance radii for the sound levels produced by the 
planned airgun configurations and pinger have been estimated (see Table 
4) and would be used for mitigation purposes during the seismic survey 
activities.

                                Table 4--Estimated Distances to Sound Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source                          190 dB                   180 dB                   160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinger...............................  1 m....................  3 m....................  25 m
10 cui Airgun........................  10 m...................  33 m...................  330 m
440 cui Airgun.......................  NA.....................  NA.....................  NA
2,400 cui airgun (nearshore).........  0.51 km................  1.42 km................  6.41 km
2,400 cui airgun (offshore)..........  1.18 km................  0.98 km................  4.89 km
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the vessels are not 
expected to exceed 180 dB (rms). Therefore, mitigation related to 
acoustic impacts from these activities is not expected to be necessary.

[[Page 73443]]

 (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 
would 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 would 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 would be taken, including a power down or 
shut down of the airgun(s).
(4) Power-Downs
    A power-down for mitigation purposes is the immediate reduction in 
the number of operating airguns such that the radii of the 190 dB rms 
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 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 airgun 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 would 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 airgun. Likewise, if a mammal is already within 
the safety zone when first detected, the airguns would be powered down 
immediately. If a marine mammal is sighted within or about to enter the 
applicable safety zone of the single mitigation airgun, it too would be 
shut down (see following section).
    Following a power-down, operation of the full airgun array would 
not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 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 airgun(s) would be shut down completely if a marine 
mammal approaches or enters the safety radius and a power-down is not 
practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB 
rms, as appropriate. In most cases, this means the mitigation airgun 
would be shut down completely if a marine mammal approaches or enters 
the estimated safety radius around the single 10 in\3\ air gun while it 
is operating during a power dow090Airgun activity would not resume 
until the marine mammal has cleared the safety radius. The animal would 
be considered to have cleared the safety radius as described above 
under power down procedures.
 (6) Ramp-Ups
    A ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound 
levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total 
volume of air guns firing until the full volume is achieved. The 
purpose of a ramp-up (or ``soft start'') is to ``warn'' cetaceans and 
pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for 
them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or 
impairment of their hearing abilities.
    During the proposed seismic survey, the seismic operator will ramp 
up the airgun array slowly. NMFS requires the rate of ramp-up to be no 
more than 6 dB per 5-minute period. Ramp-up is used at the start of 
airgun operations, after a power- or shut-down, and after any period of 
greater than 10 minutes in duration without airgun operations (i.e., 
extended shutdown).
    A full ramp-up after a shut down will not begin until there has 
been a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the safety zone by PSOs 
to assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire 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 and Beluga Cow-Calf Pairs
    The following additional protective measures beluga whale cow-calf 
pairs and aggregations of whales are proposed. Specifically, a 160-dB 
vessel monitoring zone would be established and monitored in Cook Inlet 
during all seismic surveys. Whenever an aggregation of beluga whales or 
killer whales (five or more whales of any age/sex class that appear to 
be engaged in a non-migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., 
feeding, socializing)), or 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

    Furthermore, NMFS proposes the following measures be included in 
the IHA, if issued:
    (1) All vessels should reduce speed when within 300 yards (274 m) 
of whales, and those vessels capable of steering around such groups 
should do so. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate 
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
    (2) Avoid multiple changes in direction and speed when within 300 
yards (274 m) of whales; and
    (3) When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, 
support vessels must adjust speed (increase or decrease) and direction 
accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to whales.

Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Proposed

    NMFS considered whether time/area restrictions were warranted. NMFS 
has preliminary determined that such restrictions are not necessary or 
practicable here. Beluga whales remain in Cook Inlet year-round, but 
demonstrate seasonal movement within the Inlet; in the summer and fall, 
they concentrate in upper Cook Inlet's rivers and bays, but tend to 
disperse offshore and move to mid-Inlet in winter (Hobbs et al., 2005). 
The available information indicates that in the winter months belugas 
are dispersed in deeper waters in mid-Inlet past Kalgin Island, with 
occasional forays into the upper inlet, including the upper ends of 
Knik and Turnagain Arms. Their winter

[[Page 73444]]

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 January 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, 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 well outside of the area where Apache will 
be conducting seismic surveys. Therefore, NMFS believes that the timing 
and location of the seismic survey, as proposed, will avoid areas and 
seasons that overlap with important beluga whale behavioral patterns.
    NMFS also considered whether to require time area restrictions for 
areas identified as home ranges during August through March for 14 
satellite-tracked beluga whales in Hobbs et al., 2005. NMFS has 
preliminarily determined not to require time/area restrictions for 
these areas within the 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.

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;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered, NMFS has preliminarily determined 
that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting 
the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and 
their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating 
grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the 
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

Monitoring Measures Proposed in Apache's IHA Application

    The monitoring plan proposed by Apache can be found in section 13 
of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based 
on comments or new information received from the public during the 
public comment period. A summary of the primary components of the plan 
follows.
(1) Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring
    Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by 
experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities. 
PSOs would monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near 
the survey vessel during all daylight periods during operation and 
during most daylight periods when airgun operations are not occurring. 
PSO duties would include watching for and identifying marine mammals, 
recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey 
operations, and documenting ``take by harassment'' as defined by NMFS.
    A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard the survey 
vessel to meet the following criteria: (1) 100 percent monitoring 
coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight; (2) 
maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and (3) maximum of 12 
hours of watch time per day per PSO.
    PSO teams would consist of experienced field biologists. An 
experienced field crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the 
survey vessel. Apache currently plans to have PSOs aboard 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 would be on 
the source vessels and two PSOs would be on the support vessel to 
observe the safety, power down, and shut down areas. When marine 
mammals are about to enter or are sighted within designated safety 
zones, airgun or pinger operations would be powered down (when 
applicable) or shut down immediately. The vessel-based observers would 
watch for marine mammals during all periods when sound sources are in 
operation and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun 
or pinger operations after an extended shut down.
    Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers would 
be individuals with experience as observers during seismic surveys in 
Alaska or other areas in recent years.
    The observer(s) would watch for marine mammals from the best 
available vantage point on the source and support vessels, typically 
the flying bridge. The observer(s) would scan systematically with the 
unaided eye and 7x50 reticle binoculars. Laser range finders would be 
available to assist with estimating distance. Personnel on the bridge 
would assist the observer(s) in watching for marine mammals.
    All observations would be recorded in a standardized format. Data 
would be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The 
accuracy of the data would be verified by computerized validity data 
checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checks of the 
database. These procedures would allow for initial summaries of the 
data to be prepared during and shortly after the completion of the 
field program, and would facilitate transfer of the data to 
statistical, geographical, or other programs for future processing and 
achieving. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information 
about the sighting would be recorded:
    (A) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from the PSO, apparent reaction to 
activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.),

[[Page 73445]]

closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
    (B) Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, ice 
cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
    (C) The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the PSO 
location.
    The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water 
temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun 
glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation 
watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change 
in any of those variables.
(2) Visual Shore-Based Monitoring
    In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, Apache proposes to utilize a 
shore-based station to visually monitor for marine mammals. The shore-
based station would follow all safety procedures, including bear 
safety. The location of the shore-based station would need to be 
sufficiently high to observe marine mammals; the PSOs would be equipped 
with pedestal mounted ``big eye'' (20x110) binoculars. The shore-based 
PSOs would scan the area prior to, during, and after the air gun 
operations, and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs via 
radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or within 
the project area.
(3) Aerial-Based Monitoring
    When survey operations occur near a river mouth, Apache will 
utilize the crew helicopter to conduct aerial surveys near river mouths 
prior to the commencement of airgun operations in order to identify 
locations where beluga whales congregate. The helicopter may also be 
used at other times. The helicopter would not be used every day, but 
will be used when survey operations occur near a river mouth. The types 
of helicopters currently planned for use by Apache include a Bell 407, 
Bell UH1B, and ASB3. Weather and scheduling permitting, aerial surveys 
would fly at an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event of a marine 
mammal sighting, aircraft would attempt to maintain a radial distance 
of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft would avoid 
approaching marine mammals from head-on, flying over or passing the 
shadow of the aircraft over the marine mammal(s). By following these 
operational requirements, sound levels underwater are not expected to 
meet or exceed NMFS harassment thresholds (Richardson et al., 1995; 
Blackwell et al., 2002).
(4) Acoustic Monitoring
    To further enhance detection of cetaceans, Apache proposes to 
deploy passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) devices during the seismic 
survey. Apache anticipates utilizing the same system that was deployed 
under the April 2012 IHA, which involved an over-the-side hydrophone 
floating from the M/V Dreamcatcher. Apache would continue to use this 
system until a better mooring system for the PAM buoys is developed. 
The PAM operators would use specialized real-time detection software 
and audio playback to detect marine mammal sounds. If the PAM operators 
detect marine mammals, Apache would initiate a temporary shut-down of 
the airgun arrays to avoid takes. Following a shut-down, the airguns 
may be restarted in accordance with the ramp-up procedure described 
earlier.
    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 accuracy.

Reporting Measures

(1) Field Reports
    During the proposed survey program, the PSOs would prepare a report 
each day or at such other interval as the IHA (if issued), or Apache 
may require, summarizing the recent results of the monitoring program. 
The field reports would summarize the species and numbers of marine 
mammals sighted. These reports would be provided to NMFS and to the 
survey operators on a weekly basis. At the end of each month, a summary 
of the weekly reports would be submitted to NMFS.
(2) Technical Report
    The results of Apache's 2013 monitoring program, including 
estimates of ``take'' by harassment (based on presence in the 160 dB 
harassment zone), would be presented in the ``90-day'' and Final 
Technical reports. The Technical Report would include:
    (a) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals);
    (b) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare);
    (c) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
    (d) Analyses of the effects of survey operations;
     Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could 
affect detectability), such as:
     Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state;
     Closest point of approach versus survey activity state;
     Observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey 
activity state;
     Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey 
activity state;
     Distribution around the source vessels versus survey 
activity state; and
     Estimates of take by harassment based on presence in the 
160 dB disturbance zone.
(3) Comprehensive Report
    Following the survey season, a comprehensive report describing the 
vessel-based, shore-based, aerial-based, and acoustic monitoring 
programs would be prepared. The comprehensive report would describe the 
methods, results, conclusions and limitations of each of the individual 
data sets in detail. The report would also integrate (to the extent 
possible) the studies into a broad based assessment of industry 
activities, and other activities that occur in Cook Inlet, and their 
impacts on marine mammals. The report would help to establish long-term 
data sets that can assist with the evaluation of changes in the Cook 
Inlet ecosystem. The report would attempt to provide a regional 
synthesis of available data on industry activity in this part of Alaska 
that may influence marine mammal density, distribution and behavior.
(4) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA 
(if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
Apache would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately 
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the following 
information:

[[Page 73446]]

     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).

Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Apache to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache would not be able to 
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
    In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
Apache would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the same 
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able 
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
would work with Apache to determine whether modifications in the 
activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Apache would report the incident 
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 
by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours 
of the discovery. Apache would provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral 
harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed marine survey 
program. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are associated with 
noise propagation from the sound sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) 
used in the 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. The potential 
effects of sound from the proposed seismic survey might include one or 
more of the following: Tolerance; masking of natural sounds; behavioral 
disturbance; non-auditory physical effects; and, at least in theory, 
temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson et al. 1995). The 
most common and likely impact would be from behavioral disturbance, 
including avoidance of the ensonified area or changes in speed, 
direction, and/or diving profile of the animal. Hearing impairment (TTS 
and PTS) are highly unlikely to occur based on the proposed mitigation 
and monitoring measures that would preclude marine mammals being 
exposed to noise levels high enough to cause hearing impairment.
    For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the 
seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth 
to indicate the onset of Level B harassment. To estimate 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. NMFS used Apache's 
takes estimates in its analyses.

Basis for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''

    As stated previously, it is current NMFS policy to estimate take by 
Level B harassment for impulse sounds at a received level of 160 
dBrms re 1[mu]Pa. As described earlier in this notice, 
impulsive sounds would be generated by airgun arrays that would be used 
to obtain geological data during the surveys. To estimate potential 
takes by Level B harassment in this application, as well as for 
mitigation radii to be implemented by PSOs, ranges to the 160 
dBrms re 1 [micro]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. The distances to this threshold for the 
nearshore survey locations are provided in Table 1 and correspond to 
the three transects modeled at each site in the onshore, nearshore, and 
parallel to shore directions. The distances to the thresholds for the 
channel survey locations are provided in Table 2 and correspond to the 
broadside and endfire directions. The areas ensonified to the 160 dB 
isopleth for the nearshore survey are provided in Table 3. The area 
ensonifed to the 160 dB isopleth for the channel survey is 389 km\2\.
    The following subsections describe the estimated densities of 
marine mammals that may occur in the areas where activities are 
planned, and areas of water that may be ensonified by pulsed sounds to 
>=160 dB.
    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

[[Page 73447]]

distribution or habitat use of each species.
    The maximum and average densities over the course of the total 
survey years (2000-2011) are provided in Table 5. As discussed below, 
beluga whales are observed in higher concentrations near river mouths, 
particularly the Susitna River, due to feeding. In the IHA application 
for Area 1, Apache attempted to account for the higher concentrations 
near river mouths by using the highest number of beluga whales observed 
for each survey to provide a density for near river mouths. Conversely, 
to account for the lower concentrations away from river mouths, the 
average number of beluga whales observed for each survey was used to 
provide a density away from river mouths. However, based on comments 
received regarding this methodology, for the Area 2 IHA application, 
Apache has included only the highest daily total observed in the survey 
(not total over the entire survey period because of re-sighting). These 
densities were used to estimate the number of Level B takes incidental 
to the proposed activity.

               Table 5--Summary of Marine Mammal Densities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Density (number/km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Species                      Maximum         Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale (maximum number observed--          0.00128         0.00051
 rivers)................................
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifteen species of marine mammals are known to occur in Cook Inlet, 
but only five (Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, harbor 
porpoises, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions) are likely to be 
encountered during the proposed survey activities. 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. 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. 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 estimates are conservative in order to provide a 
basis for the probability of encountering these marine mammal species 
in the action area.
    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\.
    Table 6 shows the probability of sightings per species for the 
second year of seismic surveys in Area 2 with the methods and 
assumptions outlined above. As noted earlier, the use of the NMML 
aerial survey data has inherent weaknesses. For example, the densities 
used here were calculated based on a relatively large area that was 
surveyed compared to Area 2, sightings of beluga whales are not 
corrected from missed animals, and the results do not account for 
changes in the seasonal distribution of all species.
    In addition, 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 6 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, and for many of the same reasons, the number of actual 
takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lions is expected to be much 
lower than the average of four 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). To date, only one Steller sea lions has been 
observed during seismic survey operations conducted under the April 
2012 IHA. Therefore, Apache anticipates that there will be less than 
five Steller sea lions in the proposed action area during the one-year 
effective period of the IHA, if issued.
    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 average and maximum estimated sightings of Cook Inlet beluga 
whales in Area 2 are 32 and 82, respectively. However, 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 much lower than these estimates. In 
addition, the total number of days surveying that will actually occur 
near river mouths is much lower than the 160 days used to estimate 
takes in the different water depths; therefore, this take estimate is 
likely to be extremely conservative. As a result, due to the

[[Page 73448]]

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 much lower than 
the numbers provided in Table 6.

                                                Table 6--Probability of Sightings per Species for Year 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Shallow (356 km\2\)   Intermediate  (458     Deep  (455 km\2\)      Offshore  (389             Total
                                           ----------------------        km\2\)        ----------------------        km\2\)        ---------------------
                                                   20 days       ----------------------        20 days       ----------------------        60 days
                  Species                  ----------------------        20 days       ----------------------       100 days       ---------------------
                                                                 ----------------------                      ----------------------
                                               max        avg        max        avg        max        avg        max        avg        max        avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whales.............................        9.1        3.6       11.7        4.6       11.6        4.6       49.7       19.7       82.1       32.6
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''.
    Using the 160 dB criterion, the requested take numbers of 
individual cetaceans exposed to sounds  160 dBrms 
re 1 [mu]Pa represent varying proportions of the populations of each 
species in Cook Inlet (Table 7). For Cook Inlet beluga whales, Apache 
requests 30 takes by Level B harassment. The number of beluga whale 
takes requested is based, in part, on the average number of sightings 
estimated over the course of the survey (see Table 6), as well as the 
seasonal distribution and habitat use of belugas in Cook Inlet and the 
monitoring information acquired during the seismic survey conducted 
under the 2012 IHA. This number is approximately 10 percent of the 
population of approximately 284 animals (Hobbs et al. 2011). 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--Requested Number of Takes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Number of
            Species               requested    Population    Percent of
                                    takes       abundance    population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whales.................           30           284         10.56
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``* * * 
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.'' In making a negligible impact determination, 
NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) 
The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of 
anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration 
of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.
    Given the required mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries 
or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of 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 mammals individuals may be exposed to sounds 
from seismic survey activities more than once, the duration of these 
multi-exposures is expected to be low since both the animals and the 
survey vessels will be moving constantly in and out of the survey area 
and the seismic airguns do not operate continuously all day, but for a 
few hours at a time totaling about 12 hours a day.
    Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and 
harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually 
assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are 
those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing 
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. When in the 
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive 
to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 6-12 mi (10-20 km) of 
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al. 2005). However, as 
noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed

[[Page 73449]]

to anthropogenic sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. 
Accordingly, NMFS does not find this data determinative here. Also, due 
to the dispersed distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during 
winter and the concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from 
late April through early fall, belugas would likely occur in small 
numbers in the 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 ceases. Only a very 
small portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, 
and other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary 
biological functions. In addition, the area where the survey will take 
place is not known to be an important location where beluga whales 
congregate for feeding, calving, or nursing.
    Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed 
to sound levels sufficient to cause Level B harassment are low 
percentages of the population sizes in Cook Inlet, as shown in Table 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 ceases. Only a very small 
portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and 
other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary 
biological functions. In addition, the area where the survey will take 
place is not known to be an important location where pinnipeds haulout. 
The closest known haulout site is located on Kalgin Island, which is 
about 22 km from the McArther River. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by the 
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet is not expected to result in more 
than Level B harassment and 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 proposed to be authorized represent 10 percent 
of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 284 animals 
(Hobbs et al., 2011), 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, the mitigation and monitoring measures 
(described previously in this document) proposed for inclusion in the 
IHA (if issued) are expected to reduce even further any potential 
disturbance to marine mammals.

Conclusion

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total taking from Apache's 
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet will have a negligible impact on 
the affected species or stocks. NMFS also preliminarily finds that 
small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the 
populations of the affected species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for 
Subsistence Uses

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the 
authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the 
availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. 
NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as: 
An impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to 
reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a 
harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to 
abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence 
users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals 
and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 
mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine 
mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the 
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an 
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native 
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with 
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates 
Native traditions by transmitting traditional

[[Page 73450]]

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) (Pub. 
L. 106-31, section 3022, 113 Stat. 57,100). That prohibition was 
extended indefinitely on December 21, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-553, section 
1(a)(2), 114 Stat. 2762). NMFS subsequently entered into six annual co-
management agreements (2000-2003, 2005-2006) with the Cook Inlet Marine 
Mammal Council, an ANO representing Cook Inlet beluga hunters, which 
allowed for the harvest of 1-2 belugas. On October 15, 2008, NMFS 
published a final rule that established long-term harvest limits on the 
Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be taken by Alaska Natives for 
subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits harvest for a 
5-year period (2008-2012), if the average abundance for the Cook Inlet 
beluga whales from the prior five years (2003-2007) is below 350 
whales. The next 5-year period that could allow for a harvest (2013-
2017), would require the previous five-year average (2008-2012) to be 
above 350 whales.
    There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in 
Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives 
who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of 
the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna River. 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 Association. 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 will be contacting the local Native Villages 
to inform them of the availability of the Federal Register notice and 
the opening of the public comment period.
    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 preliminarily 
determined that the proposed regulations will not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal stocks for 
subsistence uses.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the 
ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area: 
the Cook Inlet beluga whale and Steller sea lion. In addition, the 
proposed action would occur within designated critical habitat for the 
Cook Inlet beluga whales. On September 2, 2011, NMFS' Permits and 
Conservation Division initiated consultation under section 7 of the ESA 
with the Alaska Regions, NMFS, Protected Resources Division on the 
issuance of IHAs to Apache under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
which includes the action area for this proposed activity. In February 
2012, this consultation was concluded and a Biological Opinion was 
issued. The Biological Opinion determined that the issuance of IHAs 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 
BiOp included an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for Cook Inlet beluga 
whales and Steller sea lions. The ITS contains reasonable and prudent 
measures implemented by terms and conditions to minimize the effects of 
this take.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment, pursuant 
to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a 
significant effect on the human environment. This

[[Page 73451]]

analysis will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of the IHA.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to Apache's seismic 
survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: December 4, 2012.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29740 Filed 12-5-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P