[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 251 (Tuesday, December 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80386-80413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31333]



[[Page 80385]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 251

December 31, 2013

Part IV





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking 
Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska; 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / 
Notices  

[[Page 80386]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD039


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Survey in Cook Inlet, 
Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS received an application from Apache Alaska Corporation 
(Apache) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 
marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a proposed 3D seismic 
survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, between March 1, 2014, and December 31, 
2014. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 
requests comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to Apache to take, by 
Level B harassment only, five species of marine mammals during the 
specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January 
29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox 
address for providing email comments is [email protected]. NMFS is 
not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one 
provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must 
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information 
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    An electronic copy of the application used in this document may be 
obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the 
contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting 
the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. 
Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, 
during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Summary of Request

    On July 18, 2013, NMFS received an application from Apache for the 
taking of marine mammals incidental to a 3D seismic survey program. 
Based on comments and questions from NMFS, the application was revised. 
Apache submitted a new application on November 11, 2013. The 
application was determined adequate and complete on November 20, 2013.
    Apache proposes to conduct a 3D seismic survey in Cook Inlet, 
Alaska. The proposed activity would occur for approximately 8-9 months 
between March 1 and December 31, 2014. In-water airguns will only be 
active for approximately 2-3 hours during each of the slack tide 
periods. There are approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour 
period; therefore, airgun operations will be active during 
approximately 8-12 hours per day, if weather conditions allow. The 
following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to 
result in the take of marine mammals: seismic airgun operations. Take, 
by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of five species/stocks is 
anticipated to result from the specified activity.
    This is the third IHA application NMFS has received from Apache for 
takes of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey in 
Cook Inlet. On April 30, 2012, NMFS issued a 1-year IHA to Apache for 
their first season of seismic acquisition in Cook Inlet (77 FR 27720). 
NMFS issued a second 1-year IHA to Apache in February 2013 (78 FR 
12720, February 25, 2013). That IHA expires on March 1, 2014. Except 
for the location and the size of the survey area, the activities 
proposed for the 2014 survey season are essentially the same as those 
conducted during the first season. No seismic survey operations were 
conducted under the second IHA.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    Apache proposes to conduct a 3D seismic survey in Cook Inlet, 
Alaska, in an area that encompasses approximately 4,238 km\2\ (1,636 
mi\2\) of intertidal and offshore areas (see Figure 2 in Apache's 
application). Vessels will lay and retrieve nodal sensors on the sea 
floor in periods of low current, or, in the case of the intertidal 
area, during high tide over a 24-hour period. Apache proposes to use 
two synchronized vessels. Each source vessel will be equipped with 
compressors and 2,400 cubic inch (in\3\) airgun arrays. Additionally, 
one of the source vessels will be equipped with a 440 in\3\ shallow 
water source array, which can be deployed at high tide in the 
intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (6 ft) of water. The two source 
vessels do not fire the airguns simultaneously; rather, each vessel 
fires a shot every 24 seconds, leaving 12 seconds between shots.
    The operation will utilize two source vessels, three cable/nodal 
deployment

[[Page 80387]]

and retrieval operations vessels, a mitigation/monitoring vessel, a 
node re-charging and housing vessel, and two small vessels for 
personnel transport and node support in the extremely shallow waters in 
the intertidal area. Water depths for the proposed program will range 
from 0-128 m (0-420 ft).
    Apache has acquired over 800,000 acres of oil and gas leases in 
Cook Inlet since 2010 with the primary objective to explore for and 
develop oil and gas resources in Cook Inlet. Seismic surveys are 
designed to collect bathymetric and sub-seafloor data that allow the 
evaluation of potential shallow faults, gas zones, and archeological 
features at prospective exploration drilling locations. In the spring 
of 2011, Apache conducted a seismic test program to evaluate the 
feasibility of using new nodal (no cables) technology seismic recording 
equipment for operations in Cook Inlet. This test program found and 
provided important input to assist in finalizing the design of the 3D 
seismic program in Cook Inlet (the nodal technology was determined to 
be feasible). Apache began seismic onshore acquisition on the west side 
of Cook Inlet in September 2011 and offshore acquisition in May 2012 
under an IHA issued by NMFS for April 30, 2012 through April 30, 2013 
(77 FR 27720, May 11, 2012) (see Figure 1 in Apache's application).

Dates and Duration

    Apache proposes to acquire offshore/transition zone operations for 
approximately 8 to 9 months in offshore areas in open water periods 
from March 1 through December 31, 2014. During each 24-hour period, 
seismic support activities may be conducted throughout the entire 
period; however, in-water airguns will only be active for approximately 
2-3 hours during each of the slack tide periods. There are 
approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour period; therefore, 
airgun operations will be active during approximately 8-12 hours per 
day, if weather conditions allow. Two airgun source vessels will work 
concurrently on the spread, acquiring source lines approximately 12 km 
(7.5 mi) in length. Apache anticipates that a crew can acquire 
approximately 6.2 km\2\ (2.4 mi\2\) per day, assuming a crew can work 
8-12 hours per day. Thus, the actual survey duration will take 
approximately 160 days over the course of 8 to 9 months. The vessels 
will be mobilized out of Homer or Anchorage with resupply runs 
occurring multiple times per week out of Homer, Anchorage, or Nikiski.

Specified Geographic Region

    Each phase of the Apache program would encounter land, intertidal 
transition zone, and marine environments in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 
However, only the portions occurring in the intertidal zone and marine 
environments have the potential to take marine mammals. The land-based 
portion of the proposed program would not result in underwater sound 
levels that would rise to the level of a marine mammal take.
    The proposed location of Apache's acquisition plan has been divided 
into areas denoted as Zone 1 and Zone 2 (see Figure 2 in Apache's 
application). Zone 1 is located in mid-Cook Inlet and extends on the 
east coast from approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) south of Point Possession 
to 25 km (15.5 mi) north of the East Foreland. Zone 1 only reaches into 
mid-channel and parallels the western shoreline from the Beluga River 
south to Bertha Bay. Zone 2 begins at the southern edge of Zone 1 (25 
km [15.5 mi] north of the East Foreland) on both the east and west 
coasts and extends down to approximately Harriet Point on the west 
coast and to an area about 12 km (7.5 mi) north of Homer. Zones 1 and 2 
together encompass approximately 4,238 km\2\ (1,636 mi\2\) of 
intertidal and offshore areas. Although Apache would only operate in a 
portion of this entire area between March 1 and December 31, 2014, 
Apache has requested to operate in this entire region in order to allow 
for operational flexibility. There are numerous factors that influence 
the survey areas, including the geology of the Cook Inlet area, other 
permitting restrictions (i.e., commercial fishing, Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game refuges), seismic imaging of leases held by other 
entities with whom Apache has agreements (e.g., data sharing), overlap 
of sources and receivers to obtain the necessary seismic imaging data, 
and general operational restrictions (ice, weather, environmental 
conditions, marine life activity, etc.). Water depths for the program 
will range from 0-128 m (0-420 ft).

Detailed Description of Activities

(1) Recording System
    The recording system is an autonomous system ``nodal'' (i.e., no 
cables), made up of at least two types of nodes; one for the land and 
one for the intertidal and marine environment. For the land operator, a 
single-component sensor land node will be used (see Figure 4 in 
Apache's application); the inter-tidal and marine zone operators will 
use a submersible multi-component system made up of three velocity 
sensors and a hydrophone (see Figure 5 in application). These systems 
have the ability to record continuous data. Inline receiver intervals 
for the node systems will be 50 m (165 ft). The nodes are deployed in 
patches for the seismic source and deployed for up to 15 days. The 
deployment length is limited by battery length and data storage 
capacity.
    The geometry methodology that Apache will use to gather seismic 
data is called patch shooting. This type of seismic survey requires the 
use of multiple vessels for cable layout/pickup, recording, and 
sourcing. Operations begin by laying node lines on the seafloor 
parallel to each other with a node line spacing of approximately 402 m 
(1,320 ft). Apache's patch will have 6-8 node lines (receivers) that 
generally run perpendicular to the shoreline for transition zones and 
parallel to the shoreline for offshore areas. The node lines will be 
separated by either 402 or 503 m (1,320 or 1,650 ft). Inline spacing 
between nodes will be 50 m (165 ft). The node vessels will lay the 
entire patch on the seafloor prior to the airgun activity. Individual 
vessels are capable of carrying up to 400 nodes. With three node 
vessels operating simultaneously, a patch can be laid down in a single 
24-hour period, weather permitting. A sample transition zone patch is 
depicted in Figure 6 in Apache's application. A sample offshore patch 
is depicted in Figure 7 in Apache's application.
    As the patches are acquired, the node lines will be moved either 
side-to-side or inline to the next patch's location. Figure 8 in 
Apache's application depicts multiple side-to-side patches that are 
acquired individually but when seamed together at the processing phase, 
create continuous coverage along the coastline.
(2) Sensor Positioning
    Transition Zone/Offshore Components: Once the nodes are in place on 
the seafloor, the exact position of each node is required. There are 
several techniques used to locate the nodes on the seafloor, depending 
on the depth of the water. In very shallow water, the node positions 
are either surveyed by a land surveyor when the tide is low, or the 
position is accepted based on the position at which the navigator has 
laid the unit.
    In deeper water, there are two recognized techniques, known as 
Ocean Bottom Receiver Location (OBRL) and Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) 
methods. For sensor positioning, Apache will employ the USBL method by 
using a hull or pole mounted pinger to send a signal to a transponder 
which is

[[Page 80388]]

attached to each node. The transponders are coded, and the crew knows 
which transponder goes with which node prior to the layout. The 
transponder's response (once pinged) is added together with several 
other responses to create a suite of ranges and bearings between the 
pinger boat and the node. Those data are then calculated to precisely 
position the node. In good conditions, the nodes can be interrogated as 
they are laid out. It is also common for the nodes to be pinged after 
they have been laid out. The pinger that will be used is a Sonardyne 
Shallow Water Cable Positioning system. The two instruments used are a 
Scout USBL Transceiver that operates at a frequency of 33-55 kilohertz 
(kHz) at a max source level of 188 decibels referenced to one micro 
Pascal (dB re 1 [mu]Pa) at 1 m; and a LR USBL Transponder that operates 
at a frequency of 35-50 kHz at a source level of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 
1 m.
    Onshore/Intertidal Components: Onshore and intertidal locating of 
source and receivers will be accomplished with Differential Global 
Positioning System/roving units (DGPS/RTK) equipped with telemetry 
radios which will be linked to a base station established on the M/V 
Arctic Wolf or similar vessel. Survey crews will have both helicopter 
and light tracked vehicle support. Offshore source and receivers will 
be positioned with an integrated navigation system utilizing DGPS/RTK 
link to the land located base stations. The integrated navigation 
system will be capable of many features that are critical to efficient 
safe operations. The system will include a hazard display system that 
can be loaded with known obstructions or exclusion zones. Typically the 
vessel displays are also loaded with the day-to-day operational 
hazards, buoys, etc. This display gives a quick reference when a 
potential question regarding positioning or tracking arises. In the 
case of inclement weather, the hazard display can and has been used to 
vector vessels to safety.
(3) Seismic Source
    Transition Zone/Offshore Components: Apache proposes to use two 
synchronized source vessels in time. The source vessels, M/V Peregrine 
Falcon and the M/V Arctic Wolf (or similar vessels), will be equipped 
with compressors and 2,400 in\3\ airgun arrays (1,200 in\3\, if 
feasible). The M/V Peregrine Falcon, or similar, will be equipped with 
a 440 in\3\ shallow water source, which it can deploy at high tide in 
the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (6 ft) of water. Most of the 
airgun sound energy is contained at frequencies below approximately 500 
Hz. The modeled broadband source level for the array was 251 dB re 1uPa 
peak and 238 dB re 1 uPa rms. Source lines are orientated perpendicular 
to the node lines and parallel to the beach (see red lines on Figure 6 
in Apache's application). The two source vessels will traverse source 
lines of the same patch using a shooting technique called ping/pong. 
The ping/pong methodology will have the first source boat commence the 
source effort. As the first airgun pop is initiated, the second gun 
boat is sent a command and begins a countdown to pop its guns 12 
seconds later than the first vessel. The first source boat would then 
take its second pop 12 seconds after the second vessel has popped and 
so on. The vessels try to manage their speed so that they cover 
approximately 50 m (165 ft) between pops. The objective is to generate 
source positions for each of the two arrays close to a 50 m (165 ft) 
interval along each of the source lines in a patch. Vessel speeds range 
from 2-4 knots (2.3-4.6 miles/hour [mph]). The source effort will 
average 10-12 hours per day.
    Each source line is approximately 12.9 km (8 mi) long. A single 
vessel is capable of acquiring a source line in approximately 1 hour. 
With two source vessels operating simultaneously, a patch of 
approximately 3,900 source points can be acquired in a single day 
assuming a 10-12 hour source effort. When the data from the patch of 
nodes have been acquired, the node vessels pick up the patch and roll 
it to the next location. The pickup effort takes approximately 18 
hours.
    Onshore/Intertidal Components: The onshore source effort will be 
shot holes. These holes are drilled every 50 m (165 ft) along source 
lines which are orientated perpendicular to the receiver lines and 
parallel to the coast. To access the onshore drill sites, Apache would 
use a combination of helicopter portable and tracked vehicle drills. At 
each source location, Apache will drill to the prescribed hole depth of 
approximately 10 m (35 ft) and load it with 4 kilograms (kg) (8.8 
pounds [lbs]) of explosive (likely Orica OSX Pentolite Explosive). The 
hole will be capped with a ``smart cap'' that will make it impossible 
to detonate the explosive without the proper blaster. At the request of 
NMFS, Apache conducted a sound source characterization (SSC) of the 
onshore shot hole to determine if underwater received sound levels 
exceeded the NMFS thresholds for harassment. The results of the SSC 
verified received sound levels in the water are not expected to exceed 
NMFS' MMPA harassment thresholds (see Appendix A of Apache's 
application), therefore, onshore sources are not discussed further in 
this application.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could 
occur near operations in Cook Inlet include three cetacean species, all 
odontocetes (toothed whales): beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), 
killer whale (Orcinus orca), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 
and two pinniped species: harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and 
Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). The marine mammal species that 
is likely to be encountered most widely (in space and time) throughout 
the period of the planned surveys is the harbor seal. While killer 
whales and Steller sea lions have been sighted in upper Cook Inlet, 
their occurrence is considered rare in that portion of the Inlet.
    Of the five marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed 
marine survey area, Cook Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions are 
listed as endangered under the ESA (Steller sea lions are listed as two 
distinct population segments (DPSs), an eastern and a western DPS; the 
relevant DPS in Cook Inlet is the western DPS). The eastern DPS was 
recently removed from the endangered species list (78 FR 66139, 
November 4, 2013). These species are also designated as ``depleted'' 
under the MMPA. Despite these designations, Cook Inlet beluga whales 
and the western DPS of Steller sea lions have not made significant 
progress towards recovery. Data indicate that the Cook Inlet population 
of beluga whales has been decreasing at a rate of 1.1 percent annually 
between 2001 and 2011 (Allen and Angliss, 2013). A recent review of the 
status of the population indicated that there is an 80% chance that the 
population will decline further (Hobbs and Shelden 2008). Counts of 
non-pup Steller sea lions at trend sites in the Alaska western stock 
increased 11% from 2000 to 2004 (Allen and Angliss, 2013). These were 
the first region-wide increases for the western stock since 
standardized surveys began in the 1970s and were due to increased or 
stable counts in all regions except the western Aleutian Islands. 
Between 2004 and 2008, Alaska western non-pup counts increased only 3%: 
eastern Gulf of Alaska (Prince William Sound area) counts were higher 
and Kenai Peninsula through Kiska Island counts were stable, but 
western Aleutian counts continued to decline. Johnson (2010) analyzed 
western Steller sea lion population trends in Alaska and concluded that 
the

[[Page 80389]]

overall 2000-2008 trend was a decline 1.5% per year; however, there 
continues to be considerable regional variability in recent trends 
(Allen and Angliss, 2013). NMFS has not been able to complete a non-pup 
survey of the AK western stock since 2008, due largely to weather and 
closure of the Air Force base on Shemya in 2009 and 2010.
    Pursuant to the ESA, critical habitat has been designated for Cook 
Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The proposed action falls 
within critical habitat designated in Cook Inlet for beluga whales but 
is not within critical habitat designated for Steller sea lions. The 
portion of beluga whale critical habitat--identified as Area 2 in the 
critical habitat designation--where the seismic survey will occur is 
located south of the Area 1 critical habitat where belugas are 
particularly vulnerable to impacts due to their high seasonal densities 
and the biological importance of the area for foraging, nursery, and 
predator avoidance. Area 2 is based on dispersed fall and winter 
feeding and transit areas in waters where whales typically appear in 
smaller densities or deeper waters (76 FR 20180, April 11, 2011).
    There are several species of mysticetes that have been observed 
infrequently in lower Cook Inlet, including minke whale (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale 
(Balaenoptera physalus), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). 
Because of their infrequent occurrence in the location of seismic 
acquisition, they are not included in this proposed IHA notice. Sea 
otters also occur in Cook Inlet. However, sea otters are managed by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are therefore not considered further 
in this proposed IHA notice.

Cetaceans

1. Beluga Whales
    Cook Inlet beluga whales reside in Cook Inlet year-round although 
their distribution and density changes seasonally. Factors that are 
likely to influence beluga whale distribution within the inlet include 
prey availability, predation pressure, sea-ice cover, and other 
environmental factors, reproduction, sex and age class, and human 
activities (Rugh et al., 2000; NMFS 2008). Seasonal movement and 
density patterns as well as site fidelity appear to be closely linked 
to prey availability, coinciding with seasonal salmon and eulachon 
concentrations (Moore et al., 2000). For example, during spring and 
summer, beluga whales are generally concentrated near the warmer waters 
of river mouths where prey availability is high and predator occurrence 
is low (Huntington 2000; Moore et al., 2000). During the winter 
(November to April), belugas disperse throughout the upper and mid-
inlet areas, with animals found between Kalgin Island and Point 
Possession (Rugh et al., 2000). During these months, there are 
generally fewer observations of beluga whales in the Anchorage and Knik 
Arm area (NMML 2004; Rugh et al., 2004).
    Beluga whales use several areas of the upper Cook Inlet for 
repeated summer and fall feeding. The primary hotspots for beluga 
feeding include the Big and Little Susitna rivers, Eagle Bay to Eklutna 
River, Ivan Slough, Theodore River, Lewis River, and Chickaloon River 
and Bay (NMFS, 2008). Availability of prey species appears to be the 
most influential environmental variable affecting Cook Inlet beluga 
whale distribution and relative abundance (Moore et al., 2000). The 
patterns and timing of eulachon and salmon runs have a strong influence 
on beluga whale feeding behavior and their seasonal movements (Nemeth 
et al., 2007; NMFS, 2008). The presence of prey species may account for 
the seasonal changes in beluga group size and composition (Moore et 
al., 2000). Aerial and vessel-based monitoring conducted by Apache 
during the March 2011 2D test program in Cook Inlet reported 33 beluga 
sightings. One of the sightings was of a large group (~25 individuals 
on March 27, 2011) of feeding/milling belugas near the mouth of the 
Drift River. Also on March 27, 2011, protected species observers (PSOs) 
onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher reported a group of seven beluga whales 
approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi) from the vessel. Land-based PSOs were 
able to observe this group of beluga whales for approximately 2.5 hrs. 
A single beluga whale was observed near the mouth of the Drift River by 
the aerial-based monitors on March 28, 2011, prior to the seismic ramp-
up period. If belugas are present during the late summer/early fall, 
they are more likely to occur in shallow areas near river mouths in 
upper Cook Inlet. For example, no beluga whales were sighted in Trading 
Bay during the sound source verification (SSV) conducted in September 
2011 because during this time of year they are more likely to be in the 
upper regions of Cook Inlet. During the SSV in May 2012, belugas were 
sighted on both days near Drift River (some of which were observed to 
be feeding).
2. Killer Whales
    In general, killer whales are rare in upper Cook Inlet, where 
transient killer whales are known to feed on beluga whales, and 
resident killer whales are known to feed on anadromous fish (Shelden et 
al., 2003). The availability of these prey species largely determines 
the likeliest times for killer whales to be in the area. Between 1993 
and 2004, 23 sightings of killer whales were reported in the lower Cook 
Inlet during aerial surveys by Rugh et al. (2005). Surveys conducted 
over a span of 20 years by Shelden et al. (2003) reported 11 sightings 
in upper Cook Inlet between Turnagain Arm, Susitna Flats, and Knik Arm. 
No killer whales were spotted during recent surveys by Funk et al. 
(2005), Ireland et al. (2005), Brueggeman et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2008), 
or Prevel Ramos et al. (2006, 2008). Eleven killer whale strandings 
have been reported in Turnagain Arm, six in May 1991 and five in August 
1993. Therefore, very few killer whales, if any, are expected to 
approach or be in the vicinity of the action area.
3. Harbor Porpoise
    The most recent estimated density for harbor porpoises in Cook 
Inlet is 7.2 per 1,000 km\2\ (Dahlheim et al., 2000) indicating that 
only a small number use Cook Inlet. Harbor porpoise have been reported 
in lower Cook Inlet from Cape Douglas to the West Foreland, Kachemak 
Bay, and offshore (Rugh et al., 2005). Small numbers of harbor 
porpoises have been consistently reported in upper Cook Inlet between 
April and October, except for a recent survey that recorded higher than 
usual numbers (Prevel Ramos et al., 2008). Prevel Ramos et al. (2008) 
reported 17 harbor porpoises from spring to fall 2006, while other 
studies reported 14 in the spring of 2007 (Brueggeman et al. 2007) and 
12 in the fall of 2007 (Brueggeman et al. 2008). During the spring and 
fall of 2007, 129 harbor porpoises were reported between Granite Point 
and the Susitna River; however, the reason for the increase in numbers 
of harbor porpoise in the upper Cook Inlet remains unclear and the 
disparity with the result of past sightings suggests that it may be an 
anomaly. The spike in reported sightings occurred in July, which was 
followed by sightings of 79 harbor porpoises in August, 78 in 
September, and 59 in October 2007. It is important to note that the 
number of porpoises counted more than once was unknown, which suggests 
that the actual numbers are likely smaller than those reported. In 
addition, recent passive acoustic

[[Page 80390]]

research in Cook Inlet by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and 
the National Marine Mammal Laboratory have indicated that harbor 
porpoises occur in the area more frequently than previously thought, 
particularly in the West Foreland area in the spring (NMFS 2011); 
however overall numbers are still unknown at this time.

Pinnipeds

    Two species of pinnipeds may be encountered in Cook Inlet: harbor 
seal and Steller sea lion.
1. Harbor Seals
    Harbor seals inhabit the coastal and estuarine waters of Cook 
Inlet. In general, harbor seals are more abundant in lower Cook Inlet 
than in upper Cook Inlet, but they do occur in the upper inlet 
throughout most of the year (Rugh et al. 2005). Harbor seals are non-
migratory; their movements are associated with tides, weather, season, 
food availability, and reproduction. The major haulout sites for harbor 
seals are located in lower Cook Inlet, and their presence in the upper 
inlet coincides with seasonal runs of prey species. For example, harbor 
seals are commonly observed along the Susitna River and other 
tributaries along upper Cook Inlet during the eulachon and salmon 
migrations (NMFS, 2003). During aerial surveys of upper Cook Inlet in 
2001, 2002, and 2003, harbor seals were observed 24 to 96 km (15 to 60 
mi) south-southwest of Anchorage at the Chickaloon, Little Susitna, 
Susitna, Ivan, McArthur, and Beluga Rivers (Rugh et al., 2005). During 
the 2D test program in March 2011, two harbor seals were observed by 
vessel-based PSOs. On March 25, 2011, one harbor seal was observed 
approximately 400 m (0.2 mi) from the M/V Miss Diane. At the time of 
the observation, the vessel was operating the positioning pinger, and 
PSOs instructed the operator to implement a shut-down. The pinger was 
shut down for 30 minutes while PSOs monitored the area and re-started 
the device when the animal was not sighted again during the 30 minute 
site clearing protocol. No unusual behaviors were reported during the 
time the animal was observed. The second harbor seal was observed on 
March 26, 2011, by vessel-based PSO onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher 
approximately 4,260 m (2.6 mi) from the source vessel, which was 
operating the 10 in\3\ air gun at the time. Many harbor seals were 
observed during the 3D seismic survey conducted under the April 2012 
IHA, especially when survey operations were conducted close to shore. 
NMFS and Apache do not anticipate encountering large haulouts of seals 
(the closest haulout site to the action area is located on Kalgin 
Island, which is approximately 22 km [14 mi] south of the McArthur 
River), but we do expect to see curious individual harbor seals; 
especially during large fish runs in the various rivers draining into 
Cook Inlet.
2. Steller Sea Lion
    Two separate stocks of Steller sea lions are recognized within U.S. 
waters: an eastern U.S. stock, which includes animals east of Cape 
Suckling, Alaska; and a western U.S. stock, which includes animals west 
of Cape Suckling (NMFS, 2008). Individuals in Cook Inlet are considered 
part of the western U.S. stock, which is listed as endangered under the 
ESA. Steller sea lions primarily occur in lower, rather than upper Cook 
Inlet and are rarely sighted north of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. 
Haul-outs and rookeries are located near Cook Inlet at Gore Point, 
Elizabeth Island, Perl Island, and Chugach Island (NMFS, 2008). No 
Steller seal lion haul-outs or rookeries are located in the vicinity of 
the proposed seismic survey. Furthermore, no sightings of Steller sea 
lions were reported by Apache during the 2D test program in March 2011. 
During the 3D seismic survey, one Steller sea lion was observed from 
the M/V Dreamcatcher on August 18, 2012, during a period when the air 
guns were not active. Although Apache has requested takes of Steller 
sea lions, Steller sea lions would be rare in the action area during 
seismic survey operations.
    Apache's application contains information on the status, 
distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the 
species under NMFS jurisdiction mentioned in this document. Please 
refer to the application for that information (see ADDRESSES). 
Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment 
Reports (SAR). The Alaska 2012 SAR is available on the Internet at: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ak2012.pdf.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the 
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., 
seismic airgun operations, vessel movement) have been observed to or 
are thought to impact marine mammals. This section may include a 
discussion of known effects that do not rise to the level of an MMPA 
take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of 
studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting 
barely measurable avoidance). The discussion may also include reactions 
that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do 
not consider to rise to the level of a take. This section is intended 
as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the 
specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the 
mitigation that will be implemented or how either of those will shape 
the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The ``Estimated 
Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this document will 
include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are 
expected to be taken by this activity. The ``Negligible Impact 
Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how this specific 
activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of 
this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section, 
the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, and the ``Anticipated Effects on 
Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw conclusions regarding the 
likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or 
survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal 
populations or stocks.
    Operating active acoustic sources, such as air gun arrays, has the 
potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority of 
anticipated impacts would be from the use of acoustic sources.

Acoustic Impacts

    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and 
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs 
indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);

[[Page 80391]]

     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to 
occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest 
sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, five marine mammal 
species (three cetacean and two pinniped species) are likely to occur 
in the proposed seismic survey area. Of the three cetacean species 
likely to occur in Apache's proposed project area, two are classified 
as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and killer whales), and one is 
classified as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise) 
(Southall et al., 2007). A species functional hearing group is a 
consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on 
marine mammals.
1. Potential Effects of Air Gun Sounds on Marine Mammals
    The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more 
of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-
auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in previous 
NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly 
variable, often depending on species and contextual factors (based on 
Richardson et al., 1995).
    Tolerance: Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from air 
guns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many 
kilometers. Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at 
distances more than a few kilometers from operating survey vessels 
often show no apparent response. That is often true even in cases when 
the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on 
measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal 
group. In general, pinnipeds and small odontocetes (toothed whales) 
seem to be more tolerant of exposure to air gun pulses than baleen 
whales. Although various toothed whales, and (less frequently) 
pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under 
some conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no 
overt reactions. Weir (2008) observed marine mammal responses to 
seismic pulses from a 24 airgun array firing a total volume of either 
5,085 in\3\ or 3,147 in\3\ in Angolan waters between August 2004 and 
May 2005. Weir recorded a total of 207 sightings of humpback whales (n 
= 66), sperm whales (n = 124), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) 
and reported that there were no significant differences in encounter 
rates (sightings/hr) for humpback and sperm whales according to the 
airgun array's operational status (i.e., active versus silent).
    Behavioral Disturbance: Marine mammals may behaviorally react to 
sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions 
are often shown as: changing durations of surfacing and dives, number 
of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral 
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response 
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); 
avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight 
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or 
rookeries).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification have the potential to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Examples of 
significant behavioral modifications include:
     Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those 
thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
     Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al. 2007).
    Few systematic data are available describing reactions of toothed 
whales to noise pulses. However, systematic work on sperm whales is 
underway (Tyack et al., 2003), and there is an increasing amount of 
information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys 
based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; 
Moulton and Miller, 2005).
    Seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see 
dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, 
but, in general, there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to 
show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun 
systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic 
vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel 
even when large arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, there have 
been indications that small toothed whales sometimes move away or 
maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel when a large array 
of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; 
Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003). The beluga may be a species 
that (at least in certain geographic areas) shows long-distance 
avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic operations 
in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of 
beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic 
vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga 
sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting 
that some belugas might have been avoiding the seismic operations at 
distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) (Miller et al., 2005).
    Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of more relevance in this project) 
beluga whales exhibit changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed 
sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys 
(Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). However, the animals tolerated high 
received levels of sound (pk-pk level >200 dB re 1 [mu]Pa) before 
exhibiting aversive behaviors.
    Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United 
Kingdom from 1997-2000 have provided data on the occurrence and 
behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 
2003; Gordon et al., 2004). Killer whales were found to be 
significantly farther from large airgun arrays during periods of 
shooting compared with periods of no shooting. The displacement of the 
median distance from the array was approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) or 
more. Killer whales also appear to be more tolerant of seismic shooting 
in deeper water.
    Reactions of toothed whales to large arrays of airguns are variable 
and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius 
than has been observed for mysticetes. However, based

[[Page 80392]]

on the limited existing evidence, belugas should not be grouped with 
delphinids in the ``less responsive'' category.
    Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the 
airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels 
has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds and 
only slight (if any) changes in behavior. Monitoring work in the 
Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 provided considerable information 
regarding the behavior of Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic pulses 
(Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects 
usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 airguns with total volumes of 560 to 
1,500 in\3\. The combined results suggest that some seals avoid the 
immediate area around seismic vessels. In most survey years, ringed 
seal sightings tended to be farther away from the seismic vessel when 
the airguns were operating than when they were not (Moulton and Lawson, 
2002). However, these avoidance movements were relatively small, on the 
order of 100 m (328 ft) to a few hundreds of meters, and many seals 
remained within 100-200 m (328-656 ft) of the trackline as the 
operating airgun array passed by. Seal sighting rates at the water 
surface were lower during airgun array operations than during no-airgun 
periods in each survey year except 1997. Similarly, seals are often 
very tolerant of pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices (Mate and 
Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995a). 
However, initial telemetry work suggests that avoidance and other 
behavioral reactions by two other species of seals to small airgun 
sources may at times be stronger than evident to date from visual 
studies of pinniped reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., 1998). Even 
if reactions of the species occurring in the present study area are as 
strong as those evident in the telemetry study, reactions are expected 
to be confined to relatively small distances and durations, with no 
long-term effects on pinniped individuals or populations.
    Masking: Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other 
sounds, often at similar frequencies. Marine mammals use acoustic 
signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but 
include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging, 
reproduction, avoiding predators, and learning about their environment 
(Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). Masking, or auditory 
interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment are 
louder than, and of a similar frequency as, auditory signals an animal 
is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals that 
are trying to receive acoustic information about their environment, 
including sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey, 
and sounds that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking 
these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, 
groups of animals, or entire populations.
    Masking occurs when anthropogenic sounds and signals (that the 
animal utilizes) overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the 
airgun sound generated from the proposed seismic surveys, sound will 
consist of low frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short 
durations (less than one second). Lower frequency man-made sounds are 
more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other 
potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There 
is little concern regarding masking near the sound source due to the 
brief duration of these pulses and relatively longer silence between 
air gun shots (approximately 12 seconds). However, at long distances 
(over tens of kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and 
reverberation, the durations of airgun pulses can be ``stretched'' to 
seconds with long decays (Madsen et al. 2006), although the intensity 
of the sound is greatly reduced.
    This could affect communication signals used by low frequency 
mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the 
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and cause 
increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009); 
however, no baleen whales are expected to occur within the proposed 
action area. Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for 
masking by adjusting their acoustic behavior by shifting call 
frequencies, and/or increasing call volume and vocalization rates. For 
example, blue whales are found to increase call rates when exposed to 
seismic survey noise in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark 
2010). The North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) exposed to 
high shipping noise increase call frequency (Parks et al. 2007), while 
some humpback whales respond to low-frequency active sonar playbacks by 
increasing song length (Miller el al. 2000). Additionally, beluga 
whales have been known to change their vocalizations in the presence of 
high background noise possibly to avoid masking calls (Au et al., 1985; 
Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). Although some degree of 
masking is inevitable when high levels of manmade broadband sounds are 
introduced into the sea, marine mammals have evolved systems and 
behavior that function to reduce the impacts of masking. Structured 
signals, such as the echolocation click sequences of small toothed 
whales, may be readily detected even in the presence of strong 
background noise because their frequency content and temporal features 
usually differ strongly from those of the background noise (Au and 
Moore, 1988, 1990). The components of background noise that are similar 
in frequency to the sound signal in question primarily determine the 
degree of masking of that signal.
    Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak 
signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in 
the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in 
marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the 
same direction. The sound localization abilities of marine mammals 
suggest that, if signal and noise come from different directions, 
masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies 
might suggest (Richardson et al., 1995). The dominant background noise 
may be highly directional if it comes from a particular anthropogenic 
source such as a ship or industrial site. Directional hearing may 
significantly reduce the masking effects of these sounds by improving 
the effective signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of higher frequency 
hearing by the bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and killer whale, 
empirical evidence confirms that masking depends strongly on the 
relative directions of arrival of sound signals and the masking noise 
(Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; Bain et al., 1993; Bain and 
Dahlheim, 1994). Toothed whales, and probably other marine mammals as 
well, have additional capabilities besides directional hearing that can 
facilitate detection of sounds in the presence of background noise. 
There is evidence that some toothed whales can shift the dominant 
frequencies of their echolocation signals from a frequency range with a 
lot of ambient noise toward frequencies with less noise (Au et al., 
1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko 
and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A few marine mammal species are 
known to increase the source levels or alter the frequency of their 
calls in the presence of elevated sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 
1993; Lesage et al., 1993, 1999; Terhune, 1999; Foote et al., 2004;

[[Page 80393]]

Parks et al., 2007, 2009; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009).
    These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain 
mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed 
whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding 
mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine 
mammals. For example, Zaitseva et al. (1980) found that, for the 
bottlenose dolphin, the angular separation between a sound source and a 
masking noise source had little effect on the degree of masking when 
the sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast to the pronounced effect at 
higher frequencies. Directional hearing has been demonstrated at 
frequencies as low as 0.5-2 kHz in several marine mammals, including 
killer whales (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability may be useful in 
reducing masking at these frequencies. In summary, high levels of sound 
generated by anthropogenic activities may act to mask the detection of 
weaker biologically important sounds by some marine mammals. This 
masking may be more prominent for lower frequencies. For higher 
frequencies, such as that used in echolocation by toothed whales, 
several mechanisms are available that may allow them to reduce the 
effects of such masking.
    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals 
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an 
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound 
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift 
(TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or 
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to 
days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific 
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of 
hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 
be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity 
might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is 
permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a 
specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.
    The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role 
in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear 
that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment 
within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, 
displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and 
post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output 
(Southall et al., 2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal 
pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the 
amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As 
amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, so, generally, does 
the amount of TS, along with the recovery time. For intermittent 
sounds, less TS could occur than compared to a continuous exposure with 
the same energy (some recovery could occur between intermittent 
exposures depending on the duty cycle between sounds) (Kryter et al., 
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one short but loud (higher SPL) sound 
exposure may induce the same impairment as one longer but softer sound, 
which in turn may cause more impairment than a series of several 
intermittent softer sounds with the same total energy (Ward, 1997). 
Additionally, though TTS is temporary, prolonged exposure to sounds 
strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels 
well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial 
mammals (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of the seismic survey, 
animals are not expected to be exposed to levels high enough or 
durations long enough to result in PTS.
    PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007). 
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause 
PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the 
elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner 
ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear 
fluids (Southall et al., 2007).
    Although the published body of scientific literature contains 
numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing 
impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound, only a few 
studies provide empirical information on the levels at which noise-
induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in nonhuman animals. For 
marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose 
dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; 
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 
2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et 
al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data 
are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, 
and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 
2012b).
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious 
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a 
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively 
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs 
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many 
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer 
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical 
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious 
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects 
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered 
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared 
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during 
the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid 
the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other 
marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but 
their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as 
those of cetaceans, and occasionally they seem to be attracted to 
operating seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010).
    Non-auditory Physical Effects: Non-auditory physical effects might 
occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. 
Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that 
theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source 
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types 
of organ or tissue damage. Some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked 
whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when 
exposed to strong pulsed sounds.

[[Page 80394]]

    Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous 
system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception 
triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually 
threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to 
trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; Seyle, 
1950). Once an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it 
mounts a biological response or defense that consists of a combination 
of the four general biological defense responses: Behavioral responses; 
autonomic nervous system responses; neuroendocrine responses; or immune 
responses.
    In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and most 
economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance 
of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a 
stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the 
sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical 
``fight or flight'' response, which includes the cardiovascular system, 
the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal 
medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with 
``stress.'' These responses have a relatively short duration and may or 
may not have significant long-term effects on an animal's welfare.
    An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its 
neuroendocrine or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has 
received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal 
system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-
pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress 
responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all 
neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress--including immune 
competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by 
pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of 
pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 
1987; Rivier, 1995), altered metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), reduced 
immune competence (Blecha, 2000), and behavioral disturbance. Increases 
in the circulation of glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, corticosterone, 
and aldosterone in marine mammals; see Romano et al., 2004) have been 
equated with stress for many years.
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost 
of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen 
stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. 
In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a 
risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have 
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress 
response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic 
functions, which impair those functions that experience the diversion. 
For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from 
growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. 
When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an 
animal's reproductive success and fitness will suffer. In these cases, 
the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state 
which is called ``distress'' (sensu Seyle, 1950) or ``allostatic 
loading'' (sensu McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 
will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient 
to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-
term (days or weeks) stress response exposure to stimuli.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented 
fairly well through controlled experiment; because this physiology 
exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising 
that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both 
laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton et al., 
1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; 
Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 
2000). Although no information has been collected on the physiological 
responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound exposure, studies of 
other marine animals and terrestrial animals would lead us to expect 
some marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and, 
perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as 
``distress'' upon exposure to anthropogenic sounds.
    For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between 
acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of 
stress responses in humans (e.g., elevated respiration and increased 
heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance 
when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance. 
Trimper et al. (1998) reported on the physiological stress responses of 
osprey to low-level aircraft noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 
reported on the auditory and physiology stress responses of endangered 
Sonoran pronghorn to military overflights. Smith et al. (2004a, 2004b) 
identified noise-induced physiological transient stress responses in 
hearing-specialist fish (i.e., goldfish) that accompanied short- and 
long-term hearing losses. Welch and Welch (1970) reported physiological 
and behavioral stress responses that accompanied damage to the inner 
ears of fish and several mammals.
    Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather 
information about their environment and communicate with conspecifics. 
Although empirical information on the relationship between sensory 
impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains 
limited, we assume that reducing a marine mammal's ability to gather 
information about its environment and communicate with other members of 
its species would induce stress, based on data that terrestrial animals 
exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003) and 
because marine mammals use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. 
Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger 
onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress 
responses. More importantly, marine mammals might experience stress 
responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger 
onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover 
from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also assumes that stress 
responses could persist beyond the time interval required for animals 
to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-
pathological states that would be as significant as behavioral 
responses to TTS. However, as stated previously in this document, the 
source levels of the drillships are not loud enough to induce PTS or 
likely even TTS.
    Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noise-induced bubble 
formations (Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in the case of exposure 
to an impulsive broadband source like an airgun array. If seismic 
surveys disrupt diving patterns of deep-diving species, this might 
result in bubble formation and a form of the bends, as speculated to 
occur in beaked whales exposed to sonar. However, there is no specific 
evidence of this upon exposure to airgun pulses. Additionally, no 
beaked whale species occur in the proposed seismic survey area.
    In general, very little is known about the potential for strong, 
anthropogenic

[[Page 80395]]

underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine 
mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be 
limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a 
prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a 
specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be 
expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative 
predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be 
affected in those ways. There is no definitive evidence that any of 
these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large 
arrays of airguns. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral 
avoidance of seismic vessels, including belugas and some pinnipeds, are 
especially unlikely to incur non-auditory impairment or other physical 
effects. Therefore, it is unlikely that such effects would occur during 
Apache's proposed surveys given the brief duration of exposure and the 
planned monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this 
document.
    Stranding and Mortality: Marine mammals close to underwater 
detonations of high explosive can be killed or severely injured, and 
the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. 
1993; Ketten 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and their peak 
amplitudes have slower rise times. To date, there is no evidence that 
serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can occur from 
exposure to air gun pulses, even in the case of large air gun arrays.
    However, in numerous past IHA notices for seismic surveys, 
commenters have referenced two stranding events allegedly associated 
with seismic activities, one off Baja California and a second off 
Brazil. NMFS has addressed this concern several times, including in the 
Federal Register notice announcing the IHA for Apache's first seismic 
survey in 2012, and, without new information, does not believe that 
this issue warrants further discussion. For information relevant to 
strandings of marine mammals, readers are encouraged to review NMFS' 
response to comments on this matter found in 69 FR 74905 (December 14, 
2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 (August 24, 2006), 71 
FR 49418 (August 23, 2006), and 77 FR 27720 (May 11, 2012).
    It should be noted that strandings related to sound exposure have 
not been recorded for marine mammal species in Cook Inlet. Beluga whale 
strandings in Cook Inlet are not uncommon; however, these events often 
coincide with extreme tidal fluctuations (``spring tides'') or killer 
whale sightings (Shelden et al., 2003). For example, in August 2012, a 
group of Cook Inlet beluga whales stranded in the mud flats of 
Turnagain Arm during low tide and were able to swim free with the flood 
tide. No strandings or marine mammals in distress were observed during 
the 2D test survey conducted by Apache in March 2011, and none were 
reported by Cook Inlet inhabitants. Furthermore, no strandings were 
reported during seismic survey operations conducted under the April 
2012 IHA. As a result, NMFS does not expect any marine mammals will 
incur serious injury or mortality in Cook Inlet or strand as a result 
of the proposed seismic survey.
2. Potential Effects From Pingers on Marine Mammals
    Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed 
for Apache's 2014 seismic survey in Cook Inlet. The specifications for 
the pingers (source levels and frequency ranges) were provided earlier 
in this document. In general, the potential effects of this equipment 
on marine mammals are similar to those from the airguns, except the 
magnitude of the impacts is expected to be much less due to the lower 
intensity of the source.
3. Potential Effects From Aircraft Noise on Marine Mammals
    Apache plans to utilize aircraft to conduct aerial surveys near 
river mouths in order to identify locations or congregations of beluga 
whales and other marine mammals prior to the commencement of 
operations. The aircraft will not be used every day but will be used 
for surveys near river mouths. Aerial surveys will fly at an altitude 
of 305 m (1,000 ft) when practicable and weather conditions permit. In 
the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft will try to maintain a 
radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft 
will avoid approaching marine mammals from head-on, flying over or 
passing the shadow of the aircraft over the marine mammals.
    Studies on the reactions of cetaceans to aircraft show little 
negative response (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, reactions 
range from sudden dives and turns and are typically found to decrease 
if the animals are engaged in feeding or social behavior. Whales with 
calves or in confined waters may show more of a response. Generally 
there has been little or no evidence of marine mammals responding to 
aircraft overflights when altitudes are at or above 305 m (1,000 ft), 
based on three decades of flying experience in the Arctic (NMFS, 
unpublished data). Based on long-term studies that have been conducted 
on beluga whales in Cook Inlet since 1993, NMFS expect that there will 
be no effects of this activity on beluga whales or other cetaceans. No 
change in beluga swim directions or other noticeable reactions have 
been observed during the Cook Inlet aerial surveys flown from 183 to 
244 m (600 to 800 ft) (e.g., Rugh et al., 2000). By applying the 
operational requirements discussed above, sound levels underwater are 
not expected to rise to the level of a take.
    The majority of observations of pinnipeds reacting to aircraft 
noise are associated with animals hauled out on land or ice. There are 
few data describing the reactions of pinnipeds in water to aircraft 
(Richardson et al., 1995). In the presence of aircraft, pinnipeds 
hauled out for pupping or molting generally became alert and then 
rushed or slipped (when on ice) into the water. Stampedes often result 
from this response and may increase pup mortality due to crushing or an 
increase rate of pup abandonment. The greatest reactions from hauled 
out pinnipeds were observed when low flying aircrafts passed directly 
above the animal(s) (Richardson et al., 1995). Although noise 
associated with aircraft activity could cause hauled out pinnipeds to 
rush into the water, there are no known haul out sites in the vicinity 
of the survey site. Therefore, the operation of aircraft during the 
seismic survey is not expected to have effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
their populations. To minimize the noise generated by aircraft, Apache 
will follow NMFS' Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations 
found on the Internet at: http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm.

Vessel Impacts

    Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will 
temporarily increase in the action area during Apache's seismic survey 
as a result of the operation of nine vessels. To minimize the effects 
of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, Apache will 
follow NMFS' Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations and will 
alter heading or speed if a marine mammal gets too close to a vessel. 
In addition, vessels will be operating at slow speed (2-4 knots) when 
conducting surveys and in a purposeful manner to and from work sites in 
as direct a route as possible. Marine mammal monitoring observers

[[Page 80396]]

and passive acoustic devices will alert vessel captains as animals are 
detected to ensure safe and effective measures are applied to avoid 
coming into direct contact with marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS neither 
anticipates nor authorizes takes of marine mammals from ship strikes.
    Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor 
porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may 
react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or 
were previously harassed by vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Beluga 
whale response to vessel noise varies greatly from tolerance to extreme 
sensitivity depending on the activity of the whale and previous 
experience with vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Reactions to vessels 
depends on whale activities and experience, habitat, boat type, and 
boat behavior (Richardson et al., 1995) and may include behavioral 
responses, such as altered headings or avoidance (Blane and Jaakson, 
1994; Erbe and Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; changes in vocalizations 
(Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in dive, 
surfacing, and respiration patterns.
    There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel 
activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson et al., 
1995). Generally, sea lions in water show tolerance to close and 
frequently approaching vessels and sometimes show interest in fishing 
vessels. They are less tolerant when hauled out on land; however, they 
rarely react unless the vessel approaches within 100-200 m (330-660 ft; 
reviewed in Richardson et al., 1995).
    The addition of nine vessels and noise due to vessel operations 
associated with the seismic survey would not be outside the present 
experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may 
increase locally. Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and 
the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the 
other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity and 
noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or 
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their 
populations.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other 
marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by 
airguns and other active acoustic sources. However, other potential 
impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also 
possible. This section describes the potential impacts to marine mammal 
habitat from the specified activity. Because the marine mammals in the 
area feed on fish and/or invertebrates there is also information on the 
species typically preyed upon by the marine mammals in the area.

Common Marine Mammal Prey in the Project Area

    Fish are the primary prey species for marine mammals in upper Cook 
Inlet. Beluga whales feed on a variety of fish, shrimp, squid, and 
octopus (Burns and Seaman, 1986). Common prey species in Knik Arm 
include salmon, eulachon and cod. Harbor seals feed on fish such as 
pollock, cod, capelin, eulachon, Pacific herring, and salmon, as well 
as a variety of benthic species, including crabs, shrimp, and 
cephalopods. Harbor seals are also opportunistic feeders with their 
diet varying with season and location. The preferred diet of the harbor 
seal in the Gulf of Alaska consists of pollock, octopus, capelin, 
eulachon, and Pacific herring (Calkins, 1989). Other prey species 
include cod, flat fishes, shrimp, salmon, and squid (Hoover, 1988). 
Harbor porpoises feed primarily on Pacific herring, cod, whiting 
(hake), pollock, squid, and octopus (Leatherwood et al., 1982). In the 
upper Cook Inlet area, harbor porpoise feed on squid and a variety of 
small schooling fish, which would likely include Pacific herring and 
eulachon (Bowen and Siniff, 1999; NMFS, unpublished data). Killer 
whales feed on either fish or other marine mammals depending on genetic 
type (resident versus transient respectively). Killer whales in Knik 
Arm are typically the transient type (Shelden et al., 2003) and feed on 
beluga whales and other marine mammals, such as harbor seal and harbor 
porpoise. The Steller sea lion diet consists of a variety of fishes 
(capelin, cod, herring, mackerel, pollock, rockfish, salmon, sand 
lance, etc.), bivalves, squid, octopus, and gastropods.

Potential Impacts on Prey Species

    With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to 
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson 
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the 
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially 
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the 
signal in relation to the natural background sound level.
    Fishes produce sounds that are associated with behaviors that 
include territoriality, mate search, courtship, and aggression. It has 
also been speculated that sound production may provide the means for 
long distance communication and communication under poor underwater 
visibility conditions (Zelick et al., 1999), although the fact that 
fish communicate at low-frequency sound levels where the masking 
effects of ambient noise are naturally highest suggests that very long 
distance communication would rarely be possible. Fishes have evolved a 
diversity of sound generating organs and acoustic signals of various 
temporal and spectral contents. Fish sounds vary in structure, 
depending on the mechanism used to produce them (Hawkins, 1993). 
Generally, fish sounds are predominantly composed of low frequencies 
(less than 3 kHz).
    Since objects in the water scatter sound, fish are able to detect 
these objects through monitoring the ambient noise. Therefore, fish are 
probably able to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, and physical 
features by listening to environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). There 
are two sensory systems that enable fish to monitor the vibration-based 
information of their surroundings. The two sensory systems, the inner 
ear and the lateral line, constitute the acoustico-lateralis system.
    Although the hearing sensitivities of very few fish species have 
been studied to date, it is becoming obvious that the intra- and inter-
specific variability is considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell et al. 
(2004) compiled and published available fish audiogram information. A 
noninvasive electrophysiological recording method known as auditory 
brainstem response is now commonly used in the production of fish 
audiograms (Yan, 2004). Popper and Carlson (1998) and the Navy (2001) 
found that fish generally perceive underwater sounds in the frequency 
range of 50-2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz. Even though 
some fish are able to detect sounds in the ultrasonic frequency range, 
the thresholds at these higher frequencies tend to be considerably 
higher than those at the lower end of the auditory frequency range.
    Fish are sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds due to 
swimbladder resonance. As the pressure wave passes through a fish, the 
swimbladder is rapidly squeezed as the high pressure wave, and then the 
under pressure component of the wave, passes through the fish. The 
swimbladder may repeatedly expand and contract at the high sound 
pressure levels, creating

[[Page 80397]]

pressure on the internal organs surrounding the swimbladder.
    Literature relating to the impacts of sound on marine fish species 
can be divided into the following categories: (1) pathological effects; 
(2) physiological effects; and (3) behavioral effects. Pathological 
effects include lethal and sub-lethal physical damage to fish; 
physiological effects include primary and secondary stress responses; 
and behavioral effects include changes in exhibited behaviors of fish. 
Behavioral changes might be a direct reaction to a detected sound or a 
result of the anthropogenic sound masking natural sounds that the fish 
normally detect and to which they respond. The three types of effects 
are often interrelated in complex ways. For example, some physiological 
and behavioral effects could potentially lead to the ultimate 
pathological effect of mortality. Hastings and Popper (2005) reviewed 
what is known about the effects of sound on fishes and identified 
studies needed to address areas of uncertainty relative to measurement 
of sound and the responses of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/2004) also 
published a paper that reviews the effects of anthropogenic sound on 
the behavior and physiology of fishes.
    The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior 
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to 
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the 
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold 
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition 
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of 
sound rather than a continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a 
quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity 
rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level.
    Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen 
et al., 1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) have shown that fish react 
when the sound from the engines and propeller exceeds a certain level. 
Avoidance reactions have been observed in fish such as cod and herring 
when vessels approached close enough that received sound levels are 110 
dB to 130 dB (Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and Godo, 1990; Ona and 
Toresen, 1988). However, other researchers have found that fish such as 
polar cod, herring, and capeline are often attracted to vessels 
(apparently by the noise) and swim toward the vessel (Rostad et al., 
2006). Typical sound source levels of vessel noise in the audible range 
for fish are 150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 1995).
    Carlson (1994), in a review of 40 years of studies concerning the 
use of underwater sound to deter salmonids from hazardous areas at 
hydroelectric dams and other facilities, concluded that salmonids were 
able to respond to low-frequency sound and to react to sound sources 
within a few feet of the source. He speculated that the reason that 
underwater sound had no effect on salmonids at distances greater than a 
few feet is because they react to water particle motion/acceleration, 
not sound pressures. Detectable particle motion is produced within very 
short distances of a sound source, although sound pressure waves travel 
farther.

Potential Impacts to the Benthic Environment

    Apache's seismic survey requires the deployment of a submersible 
recording system in the inter-tidal and marine zones. An autonomous 
``nodal'' (i.e., no cables) system would be placed on the seafloor by 
specific vessels in lines parallel to each other with a node line 
spacing of 402 m (0.25 mi). Each nodal ``patch'' would have six to 
eight node lines parallel to each other. The lines generally run 
perpendicular to the shoreline. An entire patch would be placed on the 
seafloor prior to airgun activity. As the patches are surveyed, the 
node lines would be moved either side to side or inline to the next 
location. Placement and retrieval of the nodes may cause temporary and 
localized increases in turbidity on the seafloor. The substrate of Cook 
Inlet consists of glacial silt, clay, cobbles, pebbles, and sand 
(Sharma and Burrell, 1970). Sediments like sand and cobble dissipate 
quickly when suspended, but finer materials like clay and silt can 
create thicker plumes that may harm fish; however, the turbidity 
created by placing and removing nodes on the seafloor would settle to 
background levels within minutes after the cessation of activity.
    In addition, seismic noise will radiate throughout the water column 
from airguns and pingers until it dissipates to background levels. No 
studies have demonstrated that seismic noise affects the life stages, 
condition, or amount of food resources (fish, invertebrates, eggs) used 
by marine mammals, except when exposed to sound levels within a few 
meters of the seismic source or in few very isolated cases. Where fish 
or invertebrates did respond to seismic noise, the effects were 
temporary and of short duration. Consequently, disturbance to fish 
species due to the activities associated with the seismic survey (i.e, 
placement and retrieval of nodes and noise from sound sources) would be 
short term and fish would be expected to return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once seismic survey activities cease.
    As noted earlier in this document, upper Cook Inlet is an important 
feeding and calving area for the Cook Inlet beluga whale, and critical 
habitat has been designated for this stock in the proposed seismic 
survey area.
    Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed activity is not 
expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
their populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible 
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). 
Later in this document in the ``Proposed Incidental Harassment 
Authorization'' section, NMFS lays out the proposed conditions for 
review, as they would appear in the final IHA (if issued).

Mitigation Measures Proposed by Apache

    For the proposed mitigation measures, Apache listed the following 
protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey in Cook Inlet.
1. Operation of Mitigation Air Gun at Night
    Apache proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations. 
Nighttime operations would only be initiated if a mitigation air gun 
(typically the 10 in\3\) has been continuously operational from the 
time that PSO monitoring has ceased for the day. The mitigation airgun 
would operate on a longer duty cycle than the full airgun arrays, 
firing every 60 seconds. Seismic activity would not ramp up from an 
extended shut-down (i.e., when the airgun has been down with no 
activity for at least 10 minutes) during nighttime operations and 
survey activities would be suspended until the following day because 
dedicated PSOs would not be on duty and any unseen animals may be 
exposed to injurious levels of sound from the full array. At night, the 
vessel captain and crew

[[Page 80398]]

would maintain lookout for marine mammals and would order the airgun(s) 
to be shut down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the 
established exclusion zones.
2. Exclusion and Disturbance Zones
    Apache proposes to establish zones to avoid Level A harassment of 
all marine mammals and will shut down or power down operations if 
animals are seen approaching this zone (more detail next). 
Additionally, Apache proposes to monitor the Level B harassment zone 
and implement shut down measures if beluga whales are seen entering or 
approaching the Level B harassment zone.
    In the previous Apache IHAs, NMFS required a seasonal exclusion 
zone for airgun activities within 16 km (10 mi) of the mean high 
waterline of the Susitna Delta (``Susitna Delta'' being defined as 
shoreline between the mouth of the Beluga River to the mouth of the 
Little Susitna River). Airgun activities within this exclusion zone are 
prohibited from mid-April to mid-October. This exclusion was contingent 
on (as stated in the February 14, 2013 Biological Opinion), `Once 
results of the SSV study in the upper Cook Inlet are available, Apache 
will contact NMFS AKR [Alaska Region] to determine if a new minimum 
setback distance is required for this area during this time' (NMFS 
2013a). Apache proposes that the results of the SSV (see Appendices B, 
C, and D in Apache's application) in upper Cook Inlet indicate a 
distance of 9.5 km (5.9 mi) is a more appropriate setback distance to 
protect beluga whales. NMFS does not agree with this assertion, and our 
recommendation for this seasonal exclusion zone can be found in the 
next sub-heading of this section.
3. Power Down and Shutdown Procedures
    A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating 
energy sources from all firing to some smaller number. A shutdown is 
the immediate cessation of firing of all energy sources. The arrays 
will be immediately powered down whenever a marine mammal is sighted 
approaching close to or within the applicable exclusion zone of the 
full arrays but is outside the applicable exclusion zone of the single 
source. If a marine mammal is sighted within the applicable exclusion 
zone of the single energy source, the entire array will be shutdown 
(i.e., no sources firing). Following a power down or a shutdown, airgun 
activity will not resume until the marine mammal has clearly left the 
applicable Level A harassment exclusion zone. The animal will be 
considered to have cleared the zone if it: (1) Is visually observed to 
have left the zone; (2) has not been seen within the zone for 15 
minutes in the case of pinnipeds and small odontocetes; or (3) has not 
been seen within the zone for 30 minutes in the case of large 
odontocetes, including killer whales and belugas.
4. Ramp-Up Procedures
    A ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound 
levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total 
volume of air guns firing until the full volume is achieved. The 
purpose of a ramp-up (or ``soft start'') is to ``warn'' cetaceans and 
pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for 
them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or 
impairment of their hearing abilities.
    During the proposed seismic survey, the seismic operator will ramp 
up the airgun array slowly. NMFS requires the rate of ramp-up to be no 
more than 6 dB per 5-minute period. Ramp-up is used at the start of 
airgun operations, after a power- or shut-down, and after any period of 
greater than 10 minutes in duration without airgun operations (i.e., 
extended shutdown).
    A full ramp-up after a shutdown will not begin until there has been 
a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the safety zone by PSOs to 
assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire exclusion zone 
must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If the 
entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp-up from a cold start 
cannot begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the Level A 
harassment exclusion zone during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp-up, 
ramp-up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside 
of the zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15-30 minutes: 
15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g. harbor porpoises, 
harbor seals, and Steller sea lions), or 30 minutes for large 
odontocetes (e.g., killer whales and beluga whales).
5. Speed or Course Alteration
    If a marine mammal is detected outside the Level A (injury) 
harassment zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is 
likely to enter that zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, 
when practical and safe, be changed that also minimizes the effect on 
the seismic program. This can be used in coordination with a power down 
procedure. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the 
seismic and support vessels will be closely monitored to ensure that 
the marine mammal does not approach within the applicable exclusion 
radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the exclusion radius, 
further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course 
alterations, power down, or shut down of the airgun(s).
6. Shut-Downs for Aggregations of Whales and Beluga Cow-Calf Pairs
    The following additional protective measures for beluga whale cow-
calf pairs and aggregations of whales are proposed. Specifically, a 
160-dB vessel monitoring zone would be established and monitored in 
Cook Inlet during all seismic surveys. Whenever an aggregation of 
beluga whales or killer whales (five or more whales of any age/sex 
class), or beluga whale cow-calf pairs are observed approaching the 
160-dB zone around the survey operations, the survey activity would not 
commence or would shut down, until they are no longer present within 
the 160-dB zone of seismic surveying operations.

Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS

    As noted earlier in this section of the document, Apache proposes 
to implement a seasonal exclusion setback distance of 9.5 km (5.9 mi) 
in the Susitna Delta area. However, NMFS' Biological Opinion states 
that activities must remain at least 16 km (10 mi) from the mean high 
waterline of the Susitna Delta. The purpose of this mitigation measure 
is to protect the designated critical habitat in this area that is 
important for beluga whale feeding and calving during the spring and 
fall months. The range of the setback required by NMFS was designated 
to create this important habitat area and also to create an effective 
buffer where sound does not encroach on this habitat. Because this 
measure is in the current Biological Opinion, unless it is changed, 
NMFS cannot alter the distance as requested by Apache. NMFS proposes to 
keep the setback at the current distance of 16 km (10 mi). This 
seasonal exclusion is in effect from April 15-October 15. Activities 
can occur within this area from October 16-April 14 in a given year.
    Additionally, NMFS proposes that seismic survey operations, 
involving the use of airguns and pingers, must cease if the total 
authorized takes of any marine mammal species are met or exceeded.

[[Page 80399]]

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated Apache's proposed mitigation measures 
and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring 
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable 
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their 
habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of 
the following factors in relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received 
levels of seismic airguns, or other activities expected to result in 
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing harassment takes only).
    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to 
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to received 
levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the 
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the 
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. 
Apache submitted information regarding marine mammal monitoring to be 
conducted during seismic operations as part of the IHA application. 
That information can be found in Sections 12 and 14 of the application. 
The monitoring measures may be modified or supplemented based on 
comments or new information received from the public during the public 
comment period.
    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or 
more of the following general goals:
    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both 
within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective 
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data 
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are 
likely to be exposed to levels of active seismic airguns that we 
associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, 
TTS, or PTS;
    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to active seismic airguns or other stimuli expected to result in take 
and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways 
and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock 
(specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival) through any of the following methods:
    [cir] Behavioral observations in the presence of active seismic 
operations compared to observations in the absence of active seismic 
airguns (need to be able to accurately predict received level and 
report bathymetric conditions, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    [cir] Physiological measurements in the presence of active seismic 
airgun operations compared to observations in the absence of seismic 
airgun operations (need to be able to accurately predict received level 
and report bathymetric conditions, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information); and
    [cir] Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas 
with concentrated active seismic airgun operations versus times or 
areas without active airgun operations.
    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain 
mitigation and monitoring measures.

Proposed Monitoring Measures

1. Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring
    Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by 
experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities. 
PSOs would monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near 
the survey vessel during all daylight periods during operation and 
during most daylight periods when airgun operations are not occurring. 
PSO duties would include watching for and identifying marine mammals, 
recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey 
operations, and documenting ``take by harassment'' as defined by NMFS.
    A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard the survey 
vessel to meet the following criteria: (1) 100 percent monitoring 
coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight; (2) 
maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and (3) maximum of 12 
hours of watch time per day per PSO.
    PSO teams would consist of experienced field biologists. An 
experienced field crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the 
survey vessel. Apache currently plans to have PSOs aboard three 
vessels: The two source vessels (M/V Peregrine Falcon and M/V Arctic 
Wolf) and one support vessel (M/V Dreamcatcher). Two PSOs would be on 
the source vessels, and two PSOs would be on the support vessel to 
observe and

[[Page 80400]]

implement the exclusion, power down, and shut down areas. When marine 
mammals are about to enter or are sighted within designated harassment 
and exclusion zones, airgun or pinger operations would be powered down 
(when applicable) or shut down immediately. The vessel-based observers 
would watch for marine mammals during all periods when sound sources 
are in operation and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the start of 
airgun or pinger operations after an extended shut down.
    Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers would 
be individuals with experience as observers during seismic surveys in 
Alaska or other areas in recent years.
    The observer(s) would watch for marine mammals from the best 
available vantage point on the source and support vessels, typically 
the flying bridge. The observer(s) would scan systematically with the 
unaided eye and 7x50 reticle binoculars. Laser range finders would be 
available to assist with estimating distance on the two source vessels. 
Personnel on the bridge would assist the observer(s) in watching for 
marine mammals.
    All observations would be recorded in a standardized format. Data 
would be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The 
accuracy of the data would be verified by computerized validity data 
checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checks of the 
database. These procedures would allow for initial summaries of the 
data to be prepared during and shortly after the completion of the 
field program, and would facilitate transfer of the data to 
statistical, geographical, or other programs for future processing and 
achieving. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information 
about the sighting would be recorded:
     Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if 
determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, 
heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from the PSO, apparent 
reaction to activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, 
etc.), closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
     Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel (e.g., 
seismic airguns off, pingers on, etc.), sea state, ice cover, 
visibility, and sun glare; and
     The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the 
PSO location.
    The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water 
temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun 
glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation 
watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change 
in any of those variables.
2. Visual Shore-Based Monitoring
    In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, Apache proposes to utilize a 
shore-based station, when possible, to visually monitor for marine 
mammals. The shore-based station would follow all safety procedures, 
including bear safety. The location of the shore-based station would 
need to be sufficiently high to observe marine mammals; the PSOs would 
be equipped with pedestal mounted ``big eye'' (20x110) binoculars. The 
shore-based PSOs would scan the area prior to, during, and after the 
airgun operations and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs 
via radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or 
within the project area. This communication will allow the vessel-based 
observers to go on a ``heightened'' state of alert regarding occurrence 
of marine mammals in the area and aid in timely implementation of 
mitigation measures.
3. Aerial-Based Monitoring
    Apache proposes, safety and weather permitting, to conduct daily 
aerial surveys when there are any seismic-related activities (including 
but not limited to node laying/retrieval or airgun operations) 
occurring north or east of a line from Tyonek across to the eastern 
side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area, Cook 
Inlet. Safety and weather permitting, surveys are to be flown even if 
the airguns are not being fired.
    Apache also proposes, safety and weather permitting, and when 
operating north or east of a line from Tyonek to the eastern side of 
Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area, Cook Inlet, to 
fly daily aerial surveys around the most important beluga whale 
foraging and reproductive areas of the upper Inlet. Flights are to be 
conducted with a plane with adequate viewing capabilities, i.e., view 
not obstructed by wing or other part of the plane. Flight paths should 
encompass areas from Anchorage, along the coastline of the Susitna 
Delta to Tyonek, across the inlet to Point Possession, around the 
coastline of Chickaloon Bay to Burnt Island, and across to Anchorage 
(or in reverse order). The surveys will continue daily when Apache has 
any activities north or east of a line from Tyonek across to the 
eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area 
(see Figure 19 in Apache's application). These aerial surveys will be 
conducted in order to notify the vessel-based PSOs of marine mammals 
that may be on a path that could intersect with the seismic survey, and 
so that Apache can determine if operations should be relocated or 
temporarily suspended.
    Apache also proposes to, safety and weather permitting, conduct 
aerial surveys when operating near river mouths to identify large 
congregations of beluga whales and harbor seal haul outs. Again, these 
aerial surveys will be conducted in order to notify the vessel-based 
PSOs of the presence of marine mammals that may be on a path that could 
intersect with the seismic survey, and so that Apache can determine if 
operations should be relocated or temporarily supsended. Weather and 
scheduling permitting, aerial surveys would fly at an altitude of 305 m 
(1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft would 
attempt to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the 
marine mammal(s). Aircraft would avoid approaching marine mammals from 
head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft over the 
marine mammal(s). By following these operational requirements, sound 
levels underwater are not expected to meet or exceed NMFS harassment 
thresholds (Richardson et al., 1995; Blackwell et al., 2002).
    Based on data collected from Apache during its survey operations 
conducted under the April 2012 IHA, NMFS believes that the foregoing 
monitoring measures will allow Apache to identify animals nearing or 
entering the Level B harassment zone with a reasonably high degree of 
accuracy.

Reporting Measures

    Immediate reports will be submitted to NMFS if 25 belugas are 
detected in the Level B harassment zone to evaluate and make necessary 
adjustments to monitoring and mitigation. If the number of detected 
takes for any marine mammal species is met or exceeded, Apache will 
immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active sound 
sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
1. Weekly Reports
    Weekly reports will be submitted to NMFS no later than the close of 
business (Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water 
seismic activities take place. The field reports will summarize species 
detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, 
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine 
mammals taken.

[[Page 80401]]

2. Monthly Reports
    Monthly reports will be submitted to NMFS for all months during 
which in-water seismic activities take place. The monthly report will 
contain and summarize the following information:
     Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea 
conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and 
associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal 
sightings.
     Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and 
behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated seismic 
activity (number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all 
monitoring activities.
     An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds 
that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual 
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans 
that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual 
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
     A description of the implementation and effectiveness of 
the: (i) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental 
Take Statement (ITS); and (ii) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the 
Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each 
Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and 
describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the 
action on ESA-listed marine mammals.
3. 90-Day Technical Report
    A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of 
the project. The report will summarize all activities and monitoring 
results (i.e., vessel and shore-based visual monitoring and aerial 
monitoring) conducted during in-water seismic surveys. The Technical 
Report will include the following:
     Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals).
     Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare).
     Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of 
marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/
size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover.
     Analyses of the effects of survey operations.
     Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could 
affect detectability), such as: (i) Initial sighting distances versus 
survey activity state; (ii) closest point of approach versus survey 
activity state; (iii) observed behaviors and types of movements versus 
survey activity state; (iv) numbers of sightings/individuals seen 
versus survey activity state; (v) distribution around the source 
vessels versus survey activity state; and (vi) estimates of take by 
Level B harassment based on presence in the 160 dB harassment zone.
4. Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA 
(if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
Apache would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately 
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the following 
information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Apache to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache would not be able to 
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
    In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
Apache would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the same 
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able 
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
would work with Apache to determine whether modifications in the 
activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Apache would report the incident 
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 
by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours 
of the discovery. Apache would provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities

    As noted earlier in this document, NMFS has issued two IHAs to 
Apache for this same proposed activity. No seismic surveys were 
conducted under the IHA issued in February 2013 (became effective March 
1, 2013). Apache conducted seismic operations under the first IHA 
issued in April 2012. Below is a summary of the results from the 
monitoring conducted in accordance with the April 2012 IHA.
    Marine mammal monitoring was conducted in central Cook Inlet 
between May 6 and September 30, 2012, which resulted in a total of 
6,912 hours of observations. Monitoring was conducted from the two 
seismic survey vessels, a mitigation/monitoring vessel, four land 
platforms, and an aerial platform (either a helicopter or small fixed 
wing

[[Page 80402]]

aircraft). PSOs monitored from the seismic vessels, mitigation/
monitoring vessel, and land platforms during all daytime seismic 
operations. Aerial overflights were conducted 1-2 times daily over the 
survey area and surrounding coastline, including the major river 
mouths, to monitor for larger concentrations of marine mammals in and 
around the survey site. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) took place 
from the mitigation/monitoring vessel during all nighttime seismic 
survey operations and most daytime seismic survey operations. During 
the entire 2012 survey season, Apache's PAM equipment yielded only six 
confirmed marine mammal detections, once of which was a Cook Inlet 
beluga whale.
    Six identified species and three unidentified species of marine 
mammals were observed from the vessel, land, and aerial platforms 
between May 6 and September 30, 2012. The species observed included 
Cook Inlet beluga whales, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea 
lions, gray whales, and California sea lions. PSOs also observed 
unidentified species, including a large cetacean, pinniped, and marine 
mammal. The gray whale and California sea lion were not included in the 
2012 IHA, so mitigation measures were implemented for these species to 
prevent unauthorized takes. There were a total of 882 sightings and an 
estimated 5,232 individuals (the number or individuals is typically 
higher than the number of sightings because a single sighting may 
consist of multiple individuals). Harbor seals were the most frequently 
observed marine mammal at 563 sightings of approximately 3,471 
individuals, followed by beluga whales with 151 sightings of 
approximately 1,463 individuals, harbor porpoises with 137 sightings of 
approximately 190 individuals, and gray whales with 9 sightings of 9 
individuals. Steller sea lions were observed on three separate 
occasions (4 individuals), and two California sea lions were observed 
once. No killer whales were observed during seismic survey operations 
conducted under the 2012 IHA.
    A total of 88 exclusion zone clearing delays, 154 shutdowns, 7 
power downs, 23 shutdowns following a power down, and one speed and 
course alteration were implemented under the 2012 IHA. Exclusion zone 
clearing delays, shutdowns, and shutdowns following a power down 
occurred most frequently during harbor seal sightings (n=61, n=110, 
n=14, respectively), followed by harbor porpoise sightings (n=18, n=28, 
n=6, respectively), and then beluga whale sightings (n=5, n=6, n=3, 
respectively). Power downs occurred most frequently with harbor seal 
(n=3) and harbor porpoise (n=3) sightings. One speed and course 
alteration occurred in response to a beluga whale sighting. A total of 
17 Level B harassment takes were detected from May 6 to September 30, 
2012, including harbor porpoise (n=4) and harbor seals (n=13). No other 
marine mammal species were detected in the Level B harassment zone. 
There were no detected Level A harassment takes of either cetaceans or 
pinnipeds during the 2012 seismic survey operations.
    Based on the information from the 2012 monitoring report, NMFS has 
determined that Apache complied with the conditions of the 2012 IHA, 
and we conclude that these results support our original findings that 
the mitigation measures set forth in the 2012 Authorization effected 
the least practicable impact on the species or stocks.
    Although Apache did not conduct any seismic survey operations under 
the 2013 IHA, they still conducted marine mammal monitoring surveys 
between May and August 2013. During those aerial surveys, Apache 
detected a total of three marine mammal species: beluga whale; harbor 
porpoise; and harbor seal. A total of 718 individual belugas, three 
harbor porpoises, and 919 harbor seals were sighted. Of the 718 
observed belugas, 61 were calves. All of the calf sightings occurred in 
the Susitna Delta area, with the exception of a couple south of the 
Beluga River and a couple in Turnagain Arm. More than 60 percent of the 
beluga calf sightings occurred in June (n=39).

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral 
harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed marine survey 
program. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are associated with 
noise propagation from the sound sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) 
used in the seismic survey; no take is expected to result from the 
detonation of explosives onshore, as supported by the SSV study, from 
vessel strikes because of the slow speed of the vessels (2-4 knots), or 
from aircraft overflights, as surveys will be flown at a minimum 
altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) and at 457 m (1,500 ft) when marine 
mammals are detected.
    Apache requests authorization to take five marine mammal species by 
Level B harassment. These five marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet 
beluga whale; killer whale; harbor porpoise; harbor seal; and Steller 
sea lion.
    For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the 
seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) isopleth to 
indicate the onset of Level B harassment. The current Level A (injury) 
harassment threshold is 180 dB (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB (rms) for 
pinnipeds. Section 7 of Apache's application contains a full 
description of the methodology used by Apache to estimate takes by 
harassment, including calculations for the 160 dB (rms) isopleths and 
marine mammal densities in the areas of operation (see ADDRESSES), 
which is also provided in the following sections. NMFS verified 
Apache's methods and used Apache's take estimates in its analyses.

Basis for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''

    As stated previously, it is current NMFS policy to estimate take by 
Level B harassment for impulse sounds at a received level of 160 dB 
(rms). As described earlier in this notice, impulsive sounds would be 
generated by airgun arrays that would be used to obtain geological data 
during the surveys. To estimate potential takes by Level B harassment 
for this proposed IHA, as well as for mitigation radii to be 
implemented by PSOs, ranges to the 160 dB (rms) isopleths were 
estimated at three different water depths (5 m, 25 m, and 45 m) for 
nearshore surveys and at 80 m for channel surveys. The distances to 
this threshold for the nearshore survey locations are provided in Table 
1 in this document and Table 2 in Apache's application and correspond 
to the three transects modeled at each site in the onshore, nearshore, 
and parallel to shore directions. To estimate take by Level B 
harassment, Apache used the most conservative (largest) value from each 
category presented in Table 1 in this document. The distances to the 
thresholds for the channel survey locations are provided in Table 2 in 
this document and Table 4 in Apache's application and correspond to the 
broadside and endfire directions. The areas ensonified to the 160 dB 
isopleth for the nearshore survey are provided in Table 3 in this 
document and Table 3 in Apache's application. The area

[[Page 80403]]

ensonifed to the 160 dB isopleth for the channel survey is 517 km\2\.

      Table 1--Distances to Level B and Level A Harassment Sound Level Thresholds for the Nearshore Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Distance in
                                                  Water depth at    Distance in     Distance in    the parallel
     Sound level threshold (dB re 1 [mu]Pa)           source        the onshore    the offshore      to shore
                                                   location (m)   direction (km)  direction (km)  direction (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160.............................................               5            1.03            4.73            2.22
                                                              25            5.69            7.77             9.5
                                                              45            6.75            5.95            9.15
                                                               5            0.46             0.6            0.54
180.............................................              25            1.06            1.07            1.42
                                                              45             0.7            0.83            0.89
                                                               5            0.28            0.33            0.33
190.............................................              25            0.35            0.36            0.44
                                                              45             0.1             0.1            0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table 2--Distances to Level B and Level A Harassment Sound Level Thresholds for the Channel Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Distance in     Distance in
                                                                  Water depth at   the broadside    the endfire
             Sound level threshold  (dB re 1 [mu]Pa)                  source         direction       direction
                                                                   location  (m)       (km)            (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160.............................................................              80            5.14            7.33
180.............................................................              80            0.91            0.98
190.............................................................              80            0.15            0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3--Areas Ensonified to 160 dB (rms) for Nearshore Surveys in a 24
                               Hour Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Area
                                            Depth range    ensonified to
  Nearshore survey depth classification         (m)         160 dB re 1
                                                          [mu]Pa (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow.................................            5-21             462
Mid-depth...............................           21-38             629
Deep....................................           38-54             623
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compared to the airguns, the relevant isopleths for the positioning 
pinger is quite small. The distances to the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) 
isopleths are 1 m, 3 m, and 25 m (3.3, 10, and 82 ft), respectively.

Estimates of Marine Mammal Density

    Apache used one method to estimate densities for Cook Inlet beluga 
whales and another method for the other marine mammals in the area 
expected to be taken by harassment. Both methods are described in 
Apache's application and in this document.
1. Beluga Whale Density Estimates
    In consultation with staff from NMFS' National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory (NMML) during development of the second IHA in early 2013, 
Apache used a habitat-based model developed by Goetz et al. (2012a). 
Information from that model has once again been used to estimate 
densities of beluga whales in Cook Inlet. A summary of the model is 
provided here, and additional detail can be found in Goetz et al. 
(2012a). To develop NMML's estimated densities of belugas, Goetz et al. 
(2012a) developed a model based on aerial survey data, depth soundings, 
coastal substrate type, environmental sensitivity index, anthropogenic 
disturbance, and anadromous fish streams to predict beluga densities 
throughout Cook Inlet. The result of this work is a beluga density map 
of Cook Inlet, which easily sums the belugas predicted within a given 
geographic area. NMML developed its predictive habitat model from the 
distribution and group size of beluga whales observed between 1994 and 
2008. A 2-part ``hurdle'' model (a hurdle model in which there are two 
processes, one generating the zeroes and one generating the positive 
values) was applied to describe the physical and anthropogenic factors 
that influence (1) beluga presence (mixed model logistic regression) 
and (2) beluga count data (mixed model Poisson regression). Beluga 
presence was negatively associated with sources of anthropogenic 
disturbance and positively associated with fish availability and access 
to tidal flats and sandy substrates. Beluga group size was positively 
associated with tidal flats and proxies for seasonally available fish. 
Using this analysis, Goetz et al. (2012) produced habitat maps for 
beluga presence, group size, and the expected number of belugas in each 
1 km\2\ cell of Cook Inlet. The habitat-based model developed by NMML 
uses a Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS is a computer system 
capable of capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically 
reference information; that is, data identified according to location. 
However, the Goetz et al. (2012) model does not incorporate seasonality 
into the density estimates. Rather, Apache considers the seasonal 
considerations of beluga density into the prioritization of the seismic 
program (as discussion in more detail later in this

[[Page 80404]]

document) in addition to other factors such as weather, ice conditions, 
and seismic needs.
2. Non-Beluga Whale Species Density Estimates
    Estimated densities of other marine mammals in the proposed project 
area were estimated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS 
for Cook Inlet beluga whale between 2000 and 2012 in June (Rugh et al., 
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005b, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al., 2008, 
2009, 2010, 2012; Hobbs et al., 2011). These surveys were flown in June 
to collect abundance data of beluga whales, but sightings of other 
marine mammals are also reported. Although these data are only 
collected in one month each year, these surveys provide the best 
available relatively long term data set for sighting information in the 
proposed project area. The general trend in marine mammal sighting is 
that beluga whales and harbor seals are seen most frequently in upper 
Cook Inlet, with higher concentrations of harbor seals near haul out 
sites on Kalgin Island and of beluga whales near river mouths, 
particularly the Susitna River. The other marine mammals of interest 
for this IHA (killer whales, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions) are 
observed infrequently in upper Cook Inlet and more commonly in lower 
Cook Inlet. In addition, these densities are calculated based on a 
relatively large area that was surveyed, much larger than the proposed 
seismic area. Furthermore, these annual surveys are conducted only in 
June (numbers from August surveys were not used because the area 
surveyed was not provided), so it does not account for seasonal 
variations in distribution or habitat use of each species. Therefore, 
the use of these data to estimate density likely provides much higher 
estimates of the probability of observing these animals in the project 
area.
    Table 5 in Apache's application provides a summary of the results 
of each annual NMFS survey conducted in June from 2000 to 2012. The 
total number of individuals sighted for each survey by year is 
reported, as well as total hours for the entire survey and total area 
surveyed. To estimate density of marine mammals, total number of 
individuals (other species) observed for the entire survey area by year 
(surveys usually last several days) was divided by the total number of 
hours for each aerial survey by the approximate total area surveyed for 
each year (density = individuals/hour/km\2\). As noted previously, the 
total number of animals observed for the entire survey includes both 
lower and upper Cook Inlet, so the total number reported and used to 
calculate density is higher than the number of marine mammals 
anticipated to be observed in the project area. In particular, the 
total number of harbor seals observed on several surveys is very high 
due to several large haul outs in lower and middle Cook Inlet. Table 6 
in Apache's application presents maximum and average density estimates 
for harbor seals, harbor porpoises, killer whales, and Steller sea 
lions. The maximum density estimate for each species is based on the 
highest density noted in Table 5 in Apache's application in a single 
year during the 2000 to 2012 time period. The average density estimate 
for each species is based on the average of the data presented in Table 
5 in Apache's application from all 13 of these years combined.

Calculation of Takes by Harassment

1. Beluga Whales
    As a result of discussions with NMFS, Apache has used the NMML 
model (Goetz et al., 2012a) for the calculation of takes in this 
proposed IHA. Apache has established two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2) and 
proposes to conduct seismic surveys within all, or part of these zones; 
to be determined as weather, ice, and priorities dictate. Apache has 
committed to limit the total number of beluga whale takes to no more 
than 30 during the effective period of this proposed IHA (March 1 
through December 31, 2014). In order to estimate when that level is 
reached, Apache has developed a formula based on the total area of each 
seismic survey project zone (including the 160 dB buffer) and the 
average density of beluga whales for each zone (based on the NMML 
model. Table 7 in Apache's application and Table 4 in this document 
present the values of the total ensonified area for Zones 1 and 2 and 
the average density estimates. At this time the 160 dB buffer is 9.5 km 
(5.9 mi), if Apache conducts another SSV which has a different 160 dB 
buffer, the new buffer will be used with the same methodology outlined 
below.

      Table 4--Expected Beluga Whale Takes, Total Area of Zone, and Average Beluga Whale Density Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Expected beluga takes
                                           from NMML model         Total area of zone      Average take density
                                        (including the  160 dB   (km\2\) (including the            (dx)
                                               buffer)               160 dB buffer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1...............................                       28                     1319              d1 = 0.0212
Zone 2...............................                       29                     5160              d2 = 0.0056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apache will limit surveying in the proposed seismic survey area 
(Zones 1 and 2 presented in Figure 2 of Apache's application) to ensure 
a maximum of 30 beluga takes during the 2014 proposed program. In order 
to ensure that Apache does not exceed 30 beluga whale takes, Apache 
developed the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31DE13.169

    This formula also allows Apache to have flexibility to prioritize 
survey locations in response to local weather, ice, and operational 
constraints. Apache may choose to survey portions of a zone or a zone 
in its entirety, and the analysis

[[Page 80405]]

in this proposed IHA notice takes this into account. Using this 
formula, if Apache surveys the entire area of Zone 1 (1,319 km\2\), 
then essentially none of Zone 2 will be surveyed because the input in 
the calculation denoted by d2A2 would essentially 
need to be zero to ensure that the total allotted proposed take of 
beluga whales is not exceeded. The use of this formula will ensure that 
Apache's proposed seismic program, including the 160 dB buffer, will 
not exceed 30 calculated beluga takes.
    Apache proposes to initially limit actual survey areas, including 
160 dB buffer zones, to satisfy the formula denoted here. Apache will 
operate in Zone 1 or Zone 2 until the 30 calculated takes of belugas 
has been met or the IHA expires, whichever occurs first. If Apache 
reaches the calculated 30 takes, Apache will initiate discussions with 
NMFS to continue seismic operations in lower Cook Inlet where beluga 
whales have been rarely documented in recent years (Hobbs et al., 2000; 
Rugh et al., 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2007; Hobbs 
et al., 2011; Shelden et al., 2012; Goetz et al., 2012b). This may 
result in additional mitigation or monitoring requirements to ensure 
that no additional takes of beluga whales occur.
2. Other Marine Mammal Species
    The estimated number of other Cook Inlet marine mammals that may be 
potentially harassed during the seismic surveys was calculated by 
multiplying the average density estimates (presented in Table 6 in 
Apache's application and Table 6 in this document) by the area 
ensonified by levels >=160 dB re [micro]Pa rms (see Appendix C and 
Appendix D in Apache's application for more information) by the number 
of days estimated to be seismically surveyed.
    Apache anticipates that a crew will collect seismic data for 10-12 
hours per day over approximately 160 days over the course of 8 to 9 
months. It is assumed that over the course of these 160 days, 100 days 
would be working in the offshore region and 60 days in the shallow, 
intermediate, and deep nearshore region. Of those 60 days in the 
nearshore region, 20 days would be in each depth. It is important to 
note that environmental conditions (such as ice, wind, fog) will play a 
significant role in the actual operating days; therefore, these 
estimates are conservative in order to provide a basis for probability 
of encountering these marine mammal species in the project area.
    The number of estimated takes by harassment was calculated using 
the following assumptions:
     The number of nearshore and shallow water survey days is 
20 and daily acoustic footprint is 462 km\2\ (178 mi\2\).
     The number of nearshore and intermediate water depth 
survey days is 20 and daily acoustic footprint is 629 km\2\ (243 
mi\2\).
     The number of nearshore and deep water depth survey days 
is 20 and daily acoustic footprint is 623 km\2\ (241 mi\2\).
     The number of offshore survey days is 100 and daily 
footprint is 517 km\2\ (200 mi\2\).
    Table 8 in Apache's application and Table 5 in this document show 
the estimated maximum and average takes by species for the program with 
the methods and assumptions outlined above.

                             Table 5--Maximum and Average Encounter Probability (maximum level b take estimates) per Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Shallow          Intermediate            Deep              Offshore              Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Ensonified (km\2\).............................                 462                 629                 623                 517                2231
Survey days.........................................                  20                  20                  20                 100                 160
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                  Species                      max        avg        max        avg        max        avg        max        avg        max        avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seals..............................       62.9       47.3       85.6       64.4       84.8       63.8      351.9      264.5      585.2      439.9
Harbor porpoises..........................        3.5        0.8        4.8        1.1        4.7        1.1       19.6        4.5       32.5        7.6
Killer whales.............................        1.0        0.1        1.4        0.2        1.4        0.2        5.8        0.8        9.6        1.3
Steller sea lions.........................        3.2        1.5        4.4        2.0        4.3        2.0       17.9        8.4       29.8       13.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow water = 5-21 m
Intermediate water = 21-38 m
Deep water = 38-54 m
Take estimates = density (from Table 6 in Apache's application) * area ensonified >= 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa rms from JASCO (Appendix C in Apache's
  application) * no. of days estimated to be seismically surveyed.

    Table 5 here identifies the worst-case probability of encountering 
these marine mammal species within the 160 dB zone during the survey 
and does not account for seasonal distribution of these species, haul 
outs of harbor seals and Steller sea lions, or the rigorous mitigation 
and monitoring techniques implemented by Apache to reduce Level B takes 
to all species. The following text describes each point further.
3. Seasonal Distribution
    Hobbs et al. (2005) was able to incorporate seasonality into their 
study, but it was not intended to provide density modeling. While Goetz 
et al. (2012) provide a more sophisticated approach to estimating 
density of beluga whales, based on the design of the model, Apache 
could not include seasonality as an input to the model for estimating 
density. Therefore, Apache considered seasonality of beluga whales 
qualitatively in planning its seismic survey rather than 
quantitatively. Apache has flown regular aerial surveys for Cook Inlet 
beluga whales in 2012 and 2013. Conducting these surveys has aided 
Apache in understanding the seasonal distribution of Cook Inlet beluga 
whales. These sources confirm that there are dramatic shifts in beluga 
distribution throughout the year; and that these shifts must be 
incorporated into operational planning. To accomplish Apache's goal of 
zero beluga takes, Apache will incorporate regular aerial surveys and 
seasonal considerations of beluga presence into the prioritization of 
their seismic program, in addition to other factors such as weather, 
ice conditions, and operations.
    For other marine mammals, data used to estimate probability of 
sightings for Cook Inlet are based on a 3-4 day aerial survey conducted 
in one month (June) of each year. This aerial survey does not take into 
account that marine mammal species are not evenly distributed across 
Cook Inlet in these numbers and that animals seen in June at those 
levels may not be observed in that same area 2 months later. Because 
there are no other systematic surveys for Cook Inlet that provide the 
level of detail for these years, these surveys provide the best

[[Page 80406]]

available data for estimating takes. In particular, killer whales, 
harbor porpoises, and Steller sea lions are expected to be observed 
more frequently in lower and mid-Cook Inlet; while beluga whales and 
harbor seals are more likely to be following the salmon and eulachon 
fish runs throughout Cook Inlet. This is important because if Apache 
can begin conducting seismic surveys in lower Cook Inlet in the fall, 
when beluga whales are typically feeding in upper Cook Inlet, the 
likelihood of observing (and exposing) beluga whales to airguns is much 
lower.
4. Pinniped Haul-Outs
    Seismic surveys in the Trading Bay region have resulted in numerous 
sightings of individual harbor seals. Apache does not anticipate 
encountering large haul-outs of seals or Steller sea lions in the 
project area but expects to continue to observe curious individual 
harbor seals; particularly during large fish runs in the various rivers 
draining into Cook Inlet. These density estimates are skewed by the 
numbers observed in large haul-outs during the aerial surveys; seals on 
land would not be exposed to in-water sounds during that time. Seals in 
the water usually travel in small groups or as singles.
    For many of the same reasons discussed for harbor seals, the number 
of actual takes by harassment of Steller sea lions are expected to be 
much lower than calculated. In all of the NMFS aerial surveys, no 
Steller sea lions were observed in upper Cook Inlet. Less than five 
Steller sea lions have been observed by the Port of Anchorage 
monitoring program, and those observed have been single, juvenile 
animals (likely male). Apache anticipates less than five Steller sea 
lions in the project area.
5. Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
    As described earlier in this document, Apache proposes to implement 
a monitoring and mitigation program to reduce Level B harassment, 
particularly to beluga whales. Apache will shut down airgun operations 
if any beluga whales are sighted within or approaching the 160 dB zone 
and has committed in its IHA application to take no more than 30 beluga 
whales by harassment in 1 year. Based on this mitigation program, lower 
levels of beluga takes are anticipated from those proposed to be taken 
by harassment. Given that belugas are usually transiting from one 
feeding area to another in lower concentrations, these estimates appear 
to be reasonable in assessing probability of beluga whales potentially 
observed. This includes conducting aerial overflights near larger river 
mouths where belugas are known to congregate so that Apache can adjust 
the operational schedule to avoid operating in areas of important 
feeding times when large numbers of whales are present.
    Furthermore, the total number of days actually surveying near river 
mouths is much lower than the 160 days used to estimate takes in these 
different water depths, so this probability sighting table is an 
overestimate. Therefore, due to actual number of days and hours likely 
to be operating airguns near river mouths and the strict monitoring and 
mitigation measures to be used when operating near rivers, the actual 
number of takes by harassment estimated for beluga whales is expected 
to be much lower than the numbers presented in Table 8 in Apache's 
application and Table 5 in this document.

Summary of Proposed Level B Takes

    Table 6 here outlines the density estimates used to estimate Level 
B takes, the proposed Level B harassment take levels, the abundance of 
each species in Cook Inlet, the percentage of each species or stock 
estimated to be taken, and current population trends. In some cases, 
the estimated Level B take estimates are lower than those presented 
earlier in this document. This is because of mitigation measures and 
requirements to cease operations once these proposed take levels are 
met.

 Table 6--Density Estimates, Proposed Level B Harassment Take Levels, Species or Stock Abundance, Percentage of
                            Population Proposed To Be Taken, and Species Trend Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Average density
           Species              (/hr/  Proposed level     Abundance      Percentage of       Trend
                                    km\2\)          B take                         population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale.................  Zone 1 = 0.0212              30  283............            10.6  Decreasing.
                               Zone 2 = 0.0056
Harbor Seal..................  0.00512........             200  22,900.........            0.87  Stable.
Harbor Porpoise..............  0.00009........              20  25,987.........            0.08  No reliable
                                                                                                  information.
Killer Whale.................  0.00001........              10  1,123                      0.89  Resident stock
                                                                 (resident) 552             1.8   possibly
                                                                 (transient).                     increasing
                                                                                                  transient
                                                                                                  stock stable.
Steller Sea Lion.............  0.00016........              20  45,916.........            0.04  Decreasing but
                                                                                                  with regional
                                                                                                  variability
                                                                                                  (some stable).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, 
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact 
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of 
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, 
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any 
responses (critical reproductive time or location, feeding, migration, 
etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment 
takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
    Given the proposed mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries 
or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Apache's 
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, and none are proposed to be 
authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur 
hearing impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological 
effects. The number of takes that are anticipated and proposed to be 
authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral

[[Page 80407]]

harassment. The seismic airguns do not operate continuously over a 24-
hour period. Rather airguns are operational for a few hours at a time 
totaling about 12 hours a day.
    Both Cook Inlet beluga whales and the western stock of Steller sea 
lions are listed as endangered under the ESA. Both stocks are also 
considered depleted under the MMPA, and both stocks are declining at a 
rate of about 1.1-1.5 percent per year. The other three species that 
may be taken by harassment during Apache's proposed seismic survey 
program are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA nor as 
depleted under the MMPA.
    Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and 
harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually 
assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are 
those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing 
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. When in the 
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive 
to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10-20 km (6-12 mi) of 
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al., 2005). However, 
as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed to anthropogenic 
sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the results 
from the Beaufort Sea surveys do not directly relate to potential 
reactions of Cook Inlet beluga whales. Also, due to the dispersed 
distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during winter and the 
concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from late April 
through early fall, belugas would likely occur in small numbers in the 
survey area designated as Zone 2 by Apache during the survey period. 
For the same reason, it is unlikely that animals would be exposed to 
received levels capable of causing injury.
    Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, 
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to 
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term 
changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B 
harassment''. Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area 
that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the 
activity are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small 
portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and 
other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary 
biological functions. In addition, the area where the survey will take 
place is not known to be an important location where beluga whales 
congregate for feeding, calving, or nursing. The primary location for 
these biological life functions occur in the Susitna Delta region of 
upper Cook Inlet. NMFS proposes to implement a 16 km (10 mi) seasonal 
exclusion from seismic survey operations in this region from April 15-
October 15. The highest concentrations of belugas are typically found 
in this area from early May through September each year. NMFS has 
incorporated a 2-week buffer on each end of this seasonal use timeframe 
to account for any anomalies in distribution and marine mammal usage.
    Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated 
marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, and shutdowns or power downs when 
marine mammals are seen within defined ranges will further reduce 
short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. 
In all cases, the effects of the seismic survey are expected to be 
short-term, with no lasting biological consequence. Therefore, the 
exposure of cetaceans to sounds produced by this phase of Apache's 
proposed seismic survey is not anticipated to have an effect on annual 
rates of recruitment or survival.
    Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed 
seismic surveys more than once during the timeframe of the project. 
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects 
on pinnipeds are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a 
limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in 
behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment''. 
Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is 
surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity 
are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small portion 
of pinniped habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas 
within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions. 
In addition, the area where the survey will take place is not known to 
be an important location where pinnipeds haul out. The closest known 
haul-out site is located on Kalgin Island, which is about 22 km from 
the McArther River. Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds 
produced by this phase of Apache's proposed seismic survey is not 
anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.
    Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed 
previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat'' 
section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of 
marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to 
not affect annual rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in 
the area. Based on the size of Cook Inlet where feeding by marine 
mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey 
activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area 
would be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist 
elsewhere. Additionally, seismic survey operations will not occur in 
the primary beluga feeding and calving habitat during times of high 
use.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from Apache's proposed seismic survey will have a 
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    The requested takes proposed to be authorized represent 10.6 
percent of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 283 
animals (Allen and Angliss, 2013), 0.89 percent of the Alaska resident 
stock and 1.8 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering 
Sea stock of killer whales (1,123 residents and 552 transients), and 
0.08 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately 25,987 harbor 
porpoises. The take requests presented for harbor seals represent 0.87 
percent of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock of approximately 29,175 
animals. The requested takes proposed for Steller sea lions represent 
0.04 percent of the western stock of approximately 45,916 animals. 
These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock 
that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment if each animal is 
taken only once. The number of marine mammals taken is small relative 
to the affected species or stocks. In addition, the mitigation and 
monitoring measures (described previously in this document) proposed 
for inclusion in the IHA (if issued) are expected to reduce even 
further any potential disturbance to marine mammals.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals 
will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or 
stocks.

[[Page 80408]]

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

Relevant Subsistence Uses

    The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the 
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an 
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native 
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with 
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates 
Native traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to 
younger generations (NOAA, 2007).
    The Cook Inlet beluga whale has traditionally been hunted by Alaska 
Natives for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the 
1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary 
subsistence hunters of Cook Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s and 
1990s, Alaska Natives from villages in the western, northwestern, and 
North Slope regions of Alaska either moved to or visited the south 
central region and participated in the yearly subsistence harvest 
(Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per year 
(range 21-123) were taken in this harvest, including those successfully 
taken for food and those struck and lost. NMFS has concluded that this 
number is high enough to account for the estimated 14 percent annual 
decline in the population during this time (Hobbs et al., 2008). Actual 
mortality may have been higher, given the difficulty of estimating the 
number of whales struck and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a 
moratorium was enacted (Public Law 106-31) prohibiting the subsistence 
take of Cook Inlet beluga whales except through a cooperative agreement 
between NMFS and the affected Alaska Native organizations. Since the 
Cook Inlet beluga whale harvest was regulated in 1999 requiring 
cooperative agreements, five beluga whales have been struck and 
harvested. Those beluga whales were harvested in 2001 (one animal), 
2002 (one animal), 2003 (one animal), and 2005 (two animals). The 
Native Village of Tyonek agreed not to hunt or request a hunt in 2007, 
when no co-management agreement was to be signed (NMFS, 2008a).
    On October 15, 2008, NMFS published a final rule that established 
long-term harvest limits on the Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be 
taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That 
rule prohibits harvest for a 5-year period (2008-2012), if the average 
abundance for the Cook Inlet beluga whales from the prior five years 
(2003-2007) is below 350 whales. The next 5-year period that could 
allow for a harvest (2013-2017), would require the previous five-year 
average (2008-2012) to be above 350 whales. The 2008 Cook Inlet Beluga 
Whale Subsistence Harvest Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (NMFS, 2008a) authorizes how many beluga whales can be taken 
during a 5-year interval based on the 5-year population estimates and 
10-year measure of the population growth rate. Based on the 2008-2012 
5-year abundance estimates, no hunt occurred between 2008 and 2012 
(NMFS, 2008a). The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which managed the 
Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS, was disbanded by a 
unanimous vote of the Tribes' representatives on June 20, 2012. At this 
time, no harvest is expected in 2013 or 2014. Residents of the Native 
Village of Tyonek are the primary subsistence users in Knik Arm area.
    Data on the harvest of other marine mammals in Cook Inlet are 
lacking. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor 
seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine 
mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of 
Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest 
in Cook Inlet.
    Some detailed information on the subsistence harvest of harbor 
seals is available from past studies conducted by the Alaska Department 
of Fish & Game (Wolfe et al., 2009). In 2008, only 33 harbor seals were 
taken for harvest in the Upper Kenai-Cook Inlet area. In the same 
study, reports from hunters stated that harbor seal populations in the 
area were increasing (28.6%) or remaining stable (71.4%). The specific 
hunting regions identified were Anchorage, Homer, Kenai, and Tyonek, 
and hunting generally peaks in March, September, and November (Wolfe et 
al., 2009).

Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the 
authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the 
availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. 
NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as: 
an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to 
reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a 
harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to 
abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence 
users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals 
and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 
mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine 
mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The primary concern is the disturbance of marine mammals through 
the introduction of anthropogenic sound into the marine environment 
during the proposed seismic survey. Marine mammals could be 
behaviorally harassed and either become more difficult to hunt or 
temporarily abandon traditional hunting grounds. However, the proposed 
seismic survey should not have any impacts to beluga harvests as none 
currently occur in Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence harvests of 
other marine mammal species are limited in Cook Inlet.

Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence 
Hunts

    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for 
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of 
Cooperation or information that identifies what measures have been 
taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the 
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. NMFS 
regulations define Arctic waters as waters above 60[deg] N. latitude. 
Consistent with NMFS' implementing regulations, Apache met with the 
Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC)--a now dissolved Alaska Native 
Organization (ANO) that represented Cook Inlet tribes--on March 29, 
2011, to discuss the proposed activities and discuss any subsistence 
concerns. Apache also met with the Tyonek Native Corporation on 
November 9, 2010 and the Salamatof Native Corporation on November 22, 
2010. Additional meetings were held with the Native Village of Tyonek, 
the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, and Knik Tribal Council, and the Ninilchik 
Traditional Council. According to Apache, during these meetings, no 
concerns were raised regarding potential conflict with subsistence 
harvest of marine mammals. Apache has identified the following features 
that are intended to reduce impacts to subsistence users:
     In-water seismic activities will follow mitigation 
procedures to minimize effects on the behavior of marine mammals and, 
therefore, opportunities for harvest by Alaska Native communities; and
     Regional subsistence representatives may support recording 
marine mammal observations along with marine mammal biologists during 
the monitoring programs and will be provided with annual reports.
    Since the issuance of the April 2012 IHA, Apache has maintained 
regular

[[Page 80409]]

and consistent communication with federally recognized Alaska Natives. 
The Alaska Natives, Native Corporations, and ANOs that Apache has 
communicated with include: the Native Village of Tyonek; Tyonek Native 
Corporation; Ninilchik Native Association; Ninilchik Traditional 
Council; Salamatof Native Association; Knikatnu; Knik Native Council; 
Alexander Creek; Cook Inlet Region, Inc.; the Native Village of 
Eklutna; Kenaitze Indian Tribe; and Seldovia Native Assocaition. Apache 
has shared information gathered during the seismic survey conducted 
under the April 2012 IHA and hosted an information exchange with Alaska 
Native Villages, Native Corporations, and other Non-Governmental 
Organizations in the spring of 2013 where data from the past year's 
monitoring operations would be presented.
    Apache and NMFS recognize the importance of ensuring that ANOs and 
federally recognized tribes are informed, engaged, and involved during 
the permitting process and will continue to work with the ANOs and 
tribes to discuss operations and activities. On February 6, 2012, in 
response to requests for government-to-government consultations by the 
CIMMC and Native Village of Eklutna, NMFS met with representatives of 
these two groups and a representative from the Ninilchik. We engaged in 
a discussion about the proposed IHA for phase 1 of Apache's seismic 
program, the MMPA process for issuing an IHA, concerns regarding Cook 
Inlet beluga whales, and how to achieve greater coordination with NMFS 
on issues that impact tribal concerns. Following the publication of 
this proposed IHA, NMFS will contact the local Native Villages to 
inform them of the availability of the Federal Register notice and the 
opening of the public comment period and to invite their input. Apache 
has continued to meet with the Native Village of Tyonke, Tyonek Native 
Corporation, Cook Inlet Region Inc., and other recognized tribes and 
village corporations in the Cook Inlet Region throughout 2013.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determination

    The project will not have any effect on current beluga whale 
harvests because no beluga harvest will take place in 2014. 
Additionally, the proposed seismic survey area is not an important 
native subsistence site for other subsistence species of marine 
mammals. Also, because of the relatively small proportion of marine 
mammals utilizing Cook Inlet, the number harvested is expected to be 
extremely low. Therefore, because the proposed program would result in 
only temporary disturbances, the seismic program would not impact the 
availability of these other marine mammal species for subsistence uses.
    The timing and location of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor 
seals may coincide with Apache's project, but because this subsistence 
hunt is conducted opportunistically and at such a low level (NMFS, 
2013c), Apache's program is not expected to have an impact on the 
subsistence use of harbor seals.
    NMFS anticipates that any effects from Apache's proposed seismic 
survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga 
whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be 
short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in 
behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the 
authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the 
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to 
meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or 
avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3) 
placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the 
subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other 
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow 
subsistence needs to be met. Based on the description of the specified 
activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the 
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the 
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that there will not be an unmitgable adverse impact on 
subsistence uses from Apache's proposed activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the 
ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area: 
the Cook Inlet beluga whale and the western DPS of Steller sea lion. In 
addition, the proposed action would occur within designated critical 
habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS' Permits and Conservation 
Division consulted with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources 
Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of the first IHA to 
Apache under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, which analyzed the 
impacts in the other areas where Apache has proposed to conduct seismic 
surveys, including Area 2 (the area covered in the second IHA).
    On May 21, 2012, NMFS' Alaska Region issued a revised Biological 
Opinion, which concluded that the IHA is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the marine mammal species (such as Cook Inlet 
beluga whales and Steller sea lions) affected by the seismic survey or 
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for Cook Inlet 
beluga whales. Although the Biological Opinion considered the effects 
of multiple years of seismic surveying in the entire project area as a 
whole (see Figure 6 in the Biological Opinion), to be cautious, in 
light of the change in scope, NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division 
requested reinitiation of consultation under section 7 of the ESA to 
address these changes in the proposed action. A new Biological Opinion 
was issued on February 14, 2013. That Biological Opinion determined 
that the issuance of an IHA is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the Cook Inlet beluga whales or the western distinct 
population segment of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify 
Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. Finally, the Biological 
Opinion included an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for Cook Inlet 
beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The ITS contains reasonable and 
prudent measures implemented by terms and conditions to minimize the 
effects of this take.
    The Biological Opinion issued on February 14, 2013, is valid 
through December 31, 2014. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has 
discussed this third IHA request with NMFS' Alaska Region and 
determined that this proposed IHA falls within the scope and analysis 
of the current Biological Opinion. As proposed in this notice, this IHA 
request does not trigger any of the factors requiring a reinitiation of 
consultation. Therefore, a new section 7 consultation will not be 
conducted.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In February 2013, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) 
and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) regarding the 
issuance of the second IHA to Apache for the take of marine mammals 
incidental to a seismic survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS is 
currently reviewing the February 2013 EA to determine if the scope of 
this IHA request falls within the analysis of that EA. If that review 
determines that this proposed action does not fall within the scope of 
the current analysis, then NMFS will, pursuant to NEPA, conduct a new 
analysis to determine if the proposed action will have a significant 
effect on

[[Page 80410]]

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

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to Apache for the take of marine mammals incidental to 
conducting a seismic survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska, from March 1 
through December 31, 2014, provided the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. 
The proposed IHA language is provided next.
    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 
issued).
    (1) This Authorization is valid from March 1, 2014, through 
December 31, 2014.
    (2) This Authorization is valid only for Apache's activities 
associated with seismic survey operations that shall occur within the 
areas denoted as Zone 1 and Zone 2 as depicted in Figure 2 of Apache's 
November 2013 application to NMFS.
    (3) Species Authorized and Level of Take.
    (a) The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment 
only, is limited to the following species in the waters of Cook Inlet:
    (i) Odontocetes: 30 beluga whales; 20 harbor porpoise; and 10 
killer whales.
    (ii) Pinnipeds: 200 harbor seals and 20 Steller sea lions.
    (iii) If any marine mammal species are encountered during seismic 
activities that are not listed in conditions 3(a)(i) or (ii) for 
authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels 
(SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), then the 
Holder of this Authorization must alter speed or course, powerdown or 
shut-down the sound source to avoid take.
    (b) The taking by injury (Level A harassment) serious injury, or 
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(a) or the taking of 
any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may 
result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this 
Authorization.
    (c) If the number of detected takes of any marine mammal species 
listed in condition 3(a) is met or exceeded, Apache shall immediately 
cease survey operations involving the use of active sound sources 
(e.g., airguns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
    (4) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the 
following acoustic sources (or sources with comparable frequency and 
intensity):
    (i) Two airgun arrays, each with a capacity of 2,400 in\3\;
    (ii) Two airgun arrays, each with a capacity of 1,200 in\3\;
    (iii) A 440 in\3\ airgun array;
    (iv) A 10 in\3\ airgun;
    (v) A Scott Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) transceiver; and
    (vi) A Lightweight Release USBL transponder.
    (5) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under 
this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS or his 
designee.
    (6) The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, or 
his designee at least 48 hours prior to the start of seismic survey 
activities (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this 
Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as 
possible).
    (7) Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements: The Holder of this 
Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation and 
monitoring requirements when conducting the specified activities to 
achieve the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species 
or stocks:
    (a) Utilize a sufficient number of NMFS-qualified, vessel-based 
Protected Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) (except during meal times 
and restroom breaks, when at least one PSVO shall be on watch) to 
visually watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source 
vessels during daytime operations (from nautical twilight-dawn to 
nautical twilight-dusk) and before and during start-ups of sound 
sources day or night. Two PSVOs will be on each source vessel, and two 
PSVOs will be on the support vessel to observe the exclusion and 
disturbance zones. PSVOs shall have access to reticle binoculars (7 x 
50 Fujinon), big-eye binoculars (25 x I50), and night vision devices. 
PSVO shifts shall last no longer than 4 hours at a time. PSVOs shall 
also make observations during daytime periods when the sound sources 
are not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior, when 
feasible. When practicable, as an additional means of visual 
observation, Apache's vessel crew may also assist in detecting marine 
mammals.
    (b) In addition to the vessel-based PSVOs, utilize a shore-based 
station to visually monitor for marine mammals. The shore-based station 
will follow all safety procedures, including bear safety. The location 
of the shore-based station will need to be sufficiently high to observe 
marine mammals; the PSOs would be equipped with pedestal mounted ``big 
eye'' (20 x 110) binoculars. The shore-based PSOs would scan the area 
prior to, during, and after the survey operations involving the use of 
sound sources, and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs via 
radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or within 
the project area.
    (c) Weather and safety permitting, aerial surveys shall be 
conducted on a daily basis. Surveys are to be flown even if the airguns 
are not being fired. If weather or safety conditions prevent Apache 
from conducting aerial surveys, seismic survey operations may proceed 
subject to the terms and conditions of the IHA.
    (i) When survey operations occur near a river mouth, Apache shall 
conduct aerial surveys to identify large congregations of beluga whales 
and harbor seal haul-outs.
    (ii) Aerial surveys shall be conducted on a daily basis (weather 
and safety permitting) when there are any seismic-related activities 
(including but not limited to node laying/retrieval or airgun 
operations) occurring north or east of a line from Tyonek across to the 
eastern side of Number 3 Bay of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area, 
Cook Inlet (roughly the southern-most point of the Army Corps of 
Engineers defined Region 9).
    (iii) Aerial surveys may be conducted from either a helicopter or 
fixed-wing aircraft. A fixed-wing aircraft may be used in lieu of a 
helicopter. If flights are to be conducted with a fixed-wing aircraft, 
it must have adequate viewing capabilities, i.e., view not obstructed 
by wing or other part of the plane.
    (iv) Weather and safety permitting, flight paths should encompass 
areas from Anchorage, along the coastline of the Susitna Delta to 
Tyonek, across the inlet to Point Possession, around the coastline of 
Chickaloon Bay to Burnt Island, and across to Anchorage (or in reverse 
order). Flights shall be conducted so that the PSO has the ``inside'' 
view while following the exterior boundary line of the coverage area, 
which reduces the need for flying tracklines back and forth across the 
coverage area. The information relevant to PSO recording is provided in 
Condition 7(e).
    (v) Weather and safety permitting, aerial surveys will fly at an 
altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal sighting, 
aircraft will attempt to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) 
from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft will avoid approaching marine

[[Page 80411]]

mammals from head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft 
over the marine mammal(s).
    (d) PSVOs shall conduct monitoring while the air gun array and 
nodes are being deployed or recovered from the water.
    (e) Record the following information when a marine mammal is 
sighted:
    (i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and 
behavioral pace;
    (ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel 
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up 
or power-down), Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun 
glare; and
    (iii) The data listed under Condition 7(e)(ii) shall also be 
recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a 
watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
    (f) Establish a 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) ``exclusion zone'' (EZ) for marine mammals before the 
full array (2400 in\3\) is in operation; and a 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa 
(rms) and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) EZ before a single airgun (10 
in\3\) is in operation, respectively.
    (g) Visually observe the entire extent of the EZ (180 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] for 
pinnipeds) using NMFS-qualified PSVOs, for at least 30 minutes (min) 
prior to starting the airgun array (day or night). If the PSVO finds a 
marine mammal within the EZ, Apache must delay the seismic survey until 
the marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSVO sees a marine 
mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSVO shall wait 
30 min. If the PSVO sees no marine mammals during that time, they 
should assume that the animal has moved beyond the EZ. If for any 
reason the entire radius cannot be seen for the entire 30 min (i.e., 
rough seas, fog, darkness), or if marine mammals are near, approaching, 
or in the EZ, the airguns may not be ramped-up.
    (h) Implement a ``ramp-up'' procedure when starting up at the 
beginning of seismic operations or any time after the entire array has 
been shut down for more than 10 min, which means start the smallest 
sound source first and add sound sources in a sequence such that the 
source level of the array shall increase in steps not exceeding 
approximately 6 dB per 5-min period. During ramp-up, the PSVOs shall 
monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, a power-down, or 
shutdown shall be implemented as though the full array were 
operational. Therefore, initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown 
requires that the PSVOs be able to visually observe the full EZ as 
described in Condition 7(f) (above).
    (i) Alter speed or course during seismic operations if a marine 
mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to 
enter the relevant EZ. If speed or course alteration is not safe or 
practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still appears 
likely to enter the EZ, further mitigation measures, such as a power-
down or shutdown, shall be taken.
    (j) Power-down or shutdown the sound source(s) if a marine mammal 
is detected within, approaches, or enters the relevant EZ. A shutdown 
means all operating sound sources are shut down (i.e., turned off). A 
power-down means reducing the number of operating sound sources to a 
single operating 10 in\3\ airgun, which reduces the EZ to the degree 
that the animal(s) is no longer in or about to enter it.
    (k) Following a power-down, if the marine mammal approaches the 
smaller designated EZ, the sound sources must then be completely shut 
down. Seismic survey activity shall not resume until the PSVO has 
visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the EZ and is not likely 
to return, or has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min for species 
with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min 
for species with longer dive durations (large odontocetes, including 
killer whales and beluga whales).
    (l) Following a power-down or shutdown and subsequent animal 
departure, survey operations may resume following ramp-up procedures 
described in Condition 7(h).
    (m) Marine geophysical surveys may continue into night and low-
light hours if such segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the 
entire relevant EZs can be effectively monitored visually (i.e., 
PSVO(s) must be able to see the extent of the entire relevant EZ).
    (n) No initiation of survey operations involving the use of sound 
sources is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during low-
light hours (such as in dense fog or heavy rain).
    (o) If a beluga whale is visually sighted approaching or within the 
160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound 
source(s) shall be shut down until the animals are no longer present 
within the 160-dB zone.
    (p) Whenever aggregations or groups of killer whales and/or harbor 
porpoises are detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance 
zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound source(s) shall be 
shut-down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB 
zone. An aggregation or group of whales/porpoises shall consist of five 
or more individuals of any age/sex class.
    (q) Apache must not operate airguns within 10 miles (16 km) of the 
mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River 
to the Little Susitna River) between mid-April and mid-October (to 
avoid any effects to belugas in an important feeding and potential 
breeding area).
    (r) Seismic survey operations involving the use of air guns and 
pingers must cease if takes of any marine mammal are met or exceeded.
    (8) Reporting Requirements: The Holder of this Authorization is 
required to:
    (a) Submit a weekly field report, no later than close of business 
(Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic 
survey activities take place. The field reports will summarize species 
detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, 
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine 
mammals taken.
    (b) Submit a monthly report, no later than the 15th of each month, 
to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division for all months during which 
in-water seismic survey activities occur. These reports must contain 
and summarize the following information:
    (i) Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea 
conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and 
associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal 
sightings;
    (ii) Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and 
behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity 
(number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all 
monitoring activities;
    (iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of: (A) Pinnipeds that 
have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) 
at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
and/or 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific 
behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (B) cetaceans that have been 
exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at 
received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and/
or 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors 
those individuals exhibited.

[[Page 80412]]

    (iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: 
(A) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take 
Statement (ITS); and (B) mitigation measures of the Incidental 
Harassment Authorization. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall 
confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any 
conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for 
minimizing the adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act-
listed marine mammals.
    (c) Submit a draft Technical Report on all activities and 
monitoring results to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division within 90 
days of the completion of the Apache survey. The Technical Report will 
include:
    (i) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals);
    (ii) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare);
    (iii) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
    (iv) Analyses of the effects of survey operations;
    (v) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could 
affect detectability), such as: (A) Initial sighting distances versus 
survey activity state; (B) closest point of approach versus survey 
activity state; (C) observed behaviors and types of movements versus 
survey activity state; (D) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus 
survey activity state; (E) distribution around the source vessels 
versus survey activity state; and (F) estimates of take by Level B 
harassment based on presence in the 160 dB harassment zone.
    (d) Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after 
receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS decides that 
the draft report needs no comments, the draft report shall be 
considered to be the final report.
    (e) Apache must immediately report to NMFS if 25 belugas are 
detected within the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) disturbance zone during 
seismic survey operations to allow NMFS to consider making necessary 
adjustments to monitoring and mitigation.
    (9)(a) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity 
clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by 
this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious 
injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 
entanglement), Apache shall immediately cease the specified activities 
and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his 
designees, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report 
must include the following information:
    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
    (iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
    (iv) Description of the incident;
    (v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (vi) Water depth;
    (vii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    (viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (x) The fate of the animal(s); and
    (xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is 
available).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Apache to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
    (b) In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
Apache will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his 
designees, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline. The report must 
include the same information identified in the Condition 9(a) above. 
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 
incident. NMFS will work with Apache to determine whether modifications 
in the activities are appropriate.
    (c) In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in Condition 2 
of this Authorization (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with 
moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Apache shall 
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his designees, the NMFS 
Alaska Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773), and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators within 24 hours of the discovery. Apache shall 
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other 
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine 
Mammal Stranding Network. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews 
the circumstances of the incident.
    (10) Apache is required to comply with the Reasonable and Prudent 
Measures and Terms and Conditions of the ITS corresponding to NMFS' 
Biological Opinion issued to both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources.
    (11) A copy of this Authorization and the ITS must be in the 
possession of all contractors and PSOs operating under the authority of 
this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
    (12) Penalties and Permit Sanctions: Any person who violates any 
provision of this Incidental Harassment Authorization is subject to 
civil and criminal penalties, permit sanctions, and forfeiture as 
authorized under the MMPA.

[[Page 80413]]

    (13) This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the 
authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the 
species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or 
stocks for subsistence uses.

Request for Public Comments

    NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, 
and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for Apache's 3D 
seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Please include with your comments 
any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final 
decision on Apache's request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: December 24, 2013.
Perry Gayaldo,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-31333 Filed 12-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P