[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12160-12184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XC668


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

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

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS received an application from Furie Operating Alaska LLC 
(Furie) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine 
mammals, by harassment, incidental to a proposed 3D seismic survey in 
Cook Inlet, Alaska, between May 2014 and May 2015. Pursuant to the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS requests comments on its 
proposal to issue an IHA to Furie to take, by Level B harassment only, 
six species of marine mammals during the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 3, 
2014.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

Summary of Request

    NMFS received an application on January 23, 2013, from Furie for 
the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to a 3D seismic 
survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. In response to questions and 
comments from NMFS, a revised application was submitted on March 7, 
2013. Furie then decided to postpone the proposed seismic survey until 
2014 and further revisions were made to the IHA application to reflect 
this change in scheduling, and a final revised application was 
submitted to NMFS on December 11, 2013. The seismic survey would be 
conducted during the 2014 open water season (May to November), but the 
IHA would be valid for 12 months to account for changes in the schedule 
due to weather, shut downs from the presence of marine mammals, or 
equipment maintenance.
    The proposed 3D seismic surveys would employ the use of two source 
vessels. Each source vessel would be equipped with compressors and 2400 
in\3\ air gun arrays, although a lesser volume may be used if 
practicable. The two vessels would work in tandem, alternating 
discharge of the arrays to allow for efficient data acquisition and 
resulting in fewer survey hours. In addition, one source vessel would 
be equipped with a 440 in\3\ to 1,800 in\3\ shallow water air gun 
array, which it can deploy at high tide in the intertidal area in less 
than 1.8 m of water. The sensor, or receiving, system would be deployed 
to rest on the seafloor. The proposed survey would take place in the 
Kitchen Lights Unit (KLU) area of Cook Inlet, which encompasses 
approximately 337 km\2\ (130 square miles (mi\2\). In order to acquire 
data from the entire KLU area, the proposed seismic survey would be 
conducted in Cook Inlet from approximately Tyonek at the northern 
extent to the Forelands in the south, encompassing approximately 868 
km\2\ (335 mi\2\) of

[[Page 12161]]

intertidal and offshore areas (see Figure A-2 in Furie's IHA 
application). Impacts to marine mammals may occur from noise produced 
from active acoustic sources (primarily air guns) used in the surveys.

Description of the Specified Activity

    The proposed operations would be performed from multiple vessels; 
however the exact number and type of vessel used would depend on the 
contractor. The typical vessel use configuration for seismic surveys in 
Cook Inlet by the bidding contractors is what follows. The proposed 
survey would employ the use of two source vessels. Each source vessel 
would be equipped with compressors and 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays. In 
addition, one source vessel would be equipped with a 440 in\3\ to 1800 
in\3\ shallow water air gun array, which it can deploy at high tide in 
the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m of water. Shallow draft vessels 
would support cable/nodal deployment and retrieval operations, and 
monitoring/navigation vessels would also be used. Finally, smaller jet 
boats would be used for personnel transport and node support in the 
extremely shallow water of the intertidal area. For additional 
information, such as vessel specifications, see Furie's application.
    During the 2014 Cook Inlet open water season (May to November), 
Furie proposes to survey the entire project area in approximately 120 
days beginning in May 2014, with exact start dates and end dates 
dependent on the timing of permits and actual survey days, which can be 
influenced by other factors such as commercial fishing, other seismic 
surveys operations in overlapping or adjacent areas, and general 
operational factors (i.e., weather). Furie anticipates conducting 
survey operations 24 hours per day (e.g., receiver line deployment and 
retrieval, dependent on weather and permit conditions). During each 24 
hour period, seismic operations would be active; however air guns would 
only be used for approximately 2-3 hours during each of the slack tide 
periods. There are approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour 
day, therefore, air gun operations would be active during approximately 
8-12 hours per day, if weather conditions allow.

3D Seismic Surveys

    Seismic surveys are designed to collect bathymetric and sub-
seafloor data that allow the evaluation of potential shallow faults, 
gas zones, and archeological features at prospective exploration 
drilling locations. Data are typically collected using multiple types 
of acoustic equipment. During the surveys, Furie proposes to use the 
following in-water acoustic sources: two 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays; a 
single 1800 in\3\ air gun array; a single 440 in\3\ air gun array; and 
a pinger, or transceiver, may be used to determine receiver location. 
In 2012, Apache Alaska Corporation (Apache) successfully measured the 
sounds produced by the air guns and pingers during a 3D seismic survey 
in Cook Inlet and the preliminary distances for the exclusion zone and 
harassment zone are based on these results; however, the distances to 
each sound threshold would be verified onsite and adjusted based on 
actual measurements at the startup of the survey.
(1) Airguns
    The 2400 in\3\ air gun arrays, the 1800 in\3\ air gun array, and 
the 440 in\3\ air gun array would be used to obtain geological data 
during the survey. In 2011, the acoustic source level of the 2400 in\3\ 
air gun array was predicted using an air gun array source model (AASM) 
developed by JASCO (Warner et al., 2011). The AASM simulates the 
expansion and oscillation of the air bubbles generated by each air gun 
within a seismic array, taking into account pressure interaction 
effects between bubbles from different air guns. It includes effects 
from surface-reflected pressure waves, heat transfer from the bubbles 
to the surrounding water, and the movements of bubbles due to their 
buoyancy. The model outputs high-resolution air gun pressure signatures 
for each air gun, which are superimposed with the appropriate time 
delays to yield the overall array source signature in any direction. 
Based on this modeling, the broadband seismic source level is 
anticipated to be 240 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\/Hz at 1 meter or less with 
dominant frequency components from 1 to 500 Hz. Higher frequencies are 
expected to have increasingly lower decibel levels. For example, the 
source level at 2,000 Hz is anticipated to be less than 180 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa\2\/Hz at 1 meter. The 440 to 1800 in\3\ airgun array to be 
used in the intertidal environment will have a lower sound level. 
Isopleths were estimated at three different water depths (5 m, 25 m, 
and 45 m) for nearshore surveys and at 80 m for channel surveys. The 
distances to these thresholds for the nearshore survey locations are 
provided in Table 1 and correspond to the three transects modeled at 
each site in the onshore, offshore, and parallel to shore directions. 
The distances to the thresholds for the channel survey locations are 
provided in Table 2 and correspond to the broadside and endfire 
directions. The areas ensonified to the 160 dB isopleth for the 
nearshore survey are provided in Table 3. The area ensonifed to the 160 
dB isopleth for the channel survey is 389 km\2\.

                        Table 1--Distances to Sound Thresholds for the Nearshore Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Water depth at    Distance in the    Distance in the    Distance in the
    Threshold (dB re 1 [micro]Pa)      source location   onshore direction       Offshore      Parallel to Shore
                                             (m)                (km)         Direction  (km)    Direction  (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160.................................                  5               0.85               3.91               1.48
                                                     25               4.70               6.41               6.34
                                                     45               5.57               4.91               6.10
180.................................                  5               0.46               0.60               0.54
                                                     25               1.06               1.07               1.42
                                                     45               0.70               0.83               0.89
190.................................                  5               0.28               0.33               0.33
                                                     25               0.35               0.36               0.44
                                                     45               0.10               0.10               0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12162]]


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


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

(2) Pingers
    These instruments would be operated during survey operations to 
determine the exact position of the nodes after they have been placed 
on the seafloor. One device, the Scout Ultra-Short Baseline 
Transceiver, operates at frequencies between 33 and 55 kHz with a 
source level of 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m. The other device, an LR 
Ultra-Short Baseline Transponder, operates at a frequency of 35-50 kHz 
at a source level of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m. With respect to these 
two sources, Furie provided and NMFS relied on the distances to the 
Level B harassment thresholds estimated for the ``louder'' of the two; 
therefore, assuming a simple spreading loss of 20 log R (where R is 
radius), with a source level of 188 dB the distance to the 190, 180, 
and 160 dB isopleths would be 1, 3, and 25 m, respectively. Another 
technique for locating the nodes in deeper water is called Ocean Bottom 
Receiver Location, which uses a small volume air gun (10 in\3\) firing 
parallel to the node line.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could 
occur near operations in Cook Inlet include four cetacean species 
(three odontocetes) (toothed whales) and one mysticete (baleen whale): 
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), killer whale (Orcinus orca), 
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and gray whale (Eschrichtius 
robustus) and two pinniped species: Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 
richardsi) and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). The marine 
mammal species that is likely to be encountered most widely (in space 
and time) throughout the period of the planned surveys is the harbor 
seal.
    Of the six marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed 
marine survey area, only Cook Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions 
are listed as endangered under the ESA (Steller sea lions are listed as 
two distinct population segments (DPSs), an eastern and a western DPS; 
the relevant DPS in Cook Inlet is the western DPS). These species are 
also designated as ``depleted'' under the MMPA. Despite these 
designations, Cook Inlet beluga whales and the western DPS of Steller 
sea lions have not made significant progress towards recovery. Over the 
last 10 years (2002-2012), the Cook Inlet beluga whale population has 
declined at a rate of 0.6 percent per year (Allen and Angliss, 2013). 
With respect to Steller sea lions, results of aerial surveys conducted 
in 2008 (Fritz et al., 2008) confirmed that the recent (2004-2008) 
overall trend in the western population of adult and juvenile Steller 
sea lions in Alaska is stable or possibly in decline; however, there 
continues to be considerable regional variability in recent trends. 
Pursuant to the ESA, critical habitat has been designated for Cook 
Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The proposed action falls 
within critical habitat designated in Cook Inlet for beluga whales, but 
is not within critical habitat designated for Steller sea lions. The 
portion of beluga whale critical habitat--identified as Area 2 in the 
critical habitat designation--where the seismic survey will occur is 
located south of the Area 1 critical habitat where belugas are 
particularly vulnerable to impacts due to their high seasonal densities 
and the biological importance of the area for foraging, nursery, and 
predator avoidance. Area 2 is largely based on dispersed fall and 
winter feeding and transit areas in waters where whales typically 
appear in lower densities or deeper waters (76 FR 20180, April 11, 
2011).

Cetaceans

    Beluga Whales--Cook Inlet beluga whales reside in Cook Inlet year-
round although their distribution and density changes seasonally. 
Factors that are likely to influence beluga whale distribution within 
the inlet include prey availability, predation pressure, sea-ice cover, 
and other environmental factors, reproduction, sex and age class, and 
human activities (Rugh et al., 2000; NMFS, 2008). Seasonal movement and 
density patterns as well as site fidelity appear to be closely linked 
to prey availability, coinciding with seasonal salmon and eulachon 
concentrations (Moore et al., 2000). For example, during spring and 
summer, beluga whales are generally concentrated near the warmer waters 
of river mouths where prey availability is high and predator occurrence 
in low (Huntington, 2000; Moore et al., 2000). During the winter 
(November to April), belugas disperse throughout the upper and mid-
inlet areas, with animals found between Kalgin Island and Point 
Possession (Rugh et al., 2000). During these months, there are 
generally fewer observations of beluga whales in the Anchorage and Knik 
Arm area (NMML 2004; Rugh et al., 2004).
    Beluga whales use several areas of the upper Cook Inlet for 
repeated summer and fall feeding. The primary hotspots for beluga 
feeding include the Big and Little Susitna rivers, Eagle Bay to Eklutna 
River, Ivan Slough, Theodore River, Lewis River, and Chickaloon River 
and Bay (NMFS, 2008). Availability of prey species appears to be the 
most influential environmental variable affecting Cook Inlet beluga 
whale distribution and relative abundance (Moore et al., 2000). The

[[Page 12163]]

patterns and timing of eulachon and salmon runs have a strong influence 
on beluga whale feeding behavior and their seasonal movements (Nemeth 
et al., 2007; NMFS, 2008). The presence of prey species may account for 
the seasonal changes in beluga group size and composition (Moore et 
al., 2000). Aerial and vessel-based monitoring conducted by Apache 
during the March 2011 2D test program in Cook Inlet reported 33 beluga 
sightings. One of the sightings was of a large group (~25 individuals 
on March 27, 2011) of feeding/milling belugas near the mouth of the 
Drift River. Also on March 27, 2011, PSOs onboard the M/V Dreamcatcher 
reported a group of seven beluga whales approximately 0.5 nm from the 
vessel. Land-based PSOs were able to observe this group of beluga 
whales for approximately 2.5 hrs. A single beluga whale was observed 
near the mouth of the Drift River by the aerial-based monitors on March 
28, 2011, prior to the seismic ramp-up period. If belugas are present 
during the late summer/early fall, they are more likely to occur in 
shallow areas near river mouths in upper Cook Inlet. For example, no 
beluga whales were sighted in Trading Bay during the SSV conducted in 
September 2011 because during this time of year they are more likely to 
be in the upper regions of Cook Inlet. Expected densities were 
calculated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS between 
2000 and 2011 (Rugh et al., 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 
2007; Shelden et al., 2008, 2009, 2010; Hobbs et al., 2011). Those 
densities are presented below in Table 6.
    Killer Whales--In general, killer whales are rare in upper Cook 
Inlet, where transient killer whales are known to feed on beluga whales 
and resident killer whales are known to feed on anadromous fish 
(Shelden et al., 2003). The availability of these prey species largely 
determines the likeliest times for killer whales to be in the area. 
Between 1993 and 2004, 23 sightings of killer whales were reported in 
the lower Cook Inlet during aerial surveys by Rugh et al. (2005). 
Surveys conducted over a span of 20 years by Shelden et al. (2003) 
reported 11 sightings in upper Cook Inlet between Turnagain Arm, 
Susitna Flats, and Knik Arm. No killer whales were spotted during 
recent surveys by Funk et al. (2005), Ireland et al. (2005), Brueggeman 
et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2008), or Prevel Ramos et al. (2006, 2008). 
Eleven killer whale strandings have been reported in Turnagain Arm, six 
in May 1991 and five in August 1993. Therefore, very few killer whales, 
if any, are expected to approach or be in the vicinity of the action 
area.
    Harbor Porpoise--The most recent estimated density for harbor 
porpoises in Cook Inlet is 7.2 per 1,000 km\2\ (Dahlheim et al., 2000) 
indicating that only a small number use Cook Inlet. Harbor porpoise 
have been reported in lower Cook Inlet from Cape Douglas to the West 
Foreland, Kachemak Bay, and offshore (Rugh et al., 2005). Small numbers 
of harbor porpoises have been consistently reported in upper Cook Inlet 
between April and October, except for a recent survey that recorded 
higher than usual numbers. Prevel Ramos et al. (2008) reported 17 
harbor porpoises from spring to fall 2006, while other studies reported 
14 in the spring of 2007 (Brueggeman et al., 2007) and 12 in the fall 
(Brueggeman et al., 2008). During the spring and fall of 2007, 129 
harbor porpoises were reported between Granite Point and the Susitna 
River; however, the reason for the increase in numbers of harbor 
porpoise in the upper Cook Inlet remains unclear and the disparity with 
the result of past sightings suggests that it may be an anomaly. The 
spike in reported sightings occurred in July, which was followed by 
sightings of 79 harbor porpoises in August, 78 in September, and 59 in 
October, 2007. It is important to note that the number of porpoises 
counted more than once was unknown, which suggests that the actual 
numbers are likely smaller than those reported. In addition, recent 
passive acoustic research in Cook Inlet by the Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory have indicated 
that harbor porpoises occur in the area more frequently than previously 
thought, particularly in the West Foreland area in the spring (NMFS, 
2011); however overall numbers are still unknown at this time.
    Gray Whale--The gray whale is a large baleen whale known to have 
one of the longest migrations of any mammal. This whale can be found 
all along the shallow coastal waters of the North Pacific Ocean.
    The Eastern North Pacific stock, which includes those whales that 
travel along the coast of Alaska, was delisted from the ESA in 1994 
after a distinction was made between the western and eastern 
populations (59 FR 31094, June 16, 1994). It is estimated that 
approximately 18,000 individuals exist in the eastern stock (Allen and 
Angliss, 2012).
    Although observations of gray whales are rare within Cook Inlet, 
marine mammal observers noted individual gray whales on nine occasions 
in the vicinity of Furie's proposed survey location in 2012 while 
conducting marine mammal monitoring for seismic survey activities under 
the IHA NMFS issued to Apache: Four times in May; twice in June; and 
three times in July (Apache, 2013). Annual survey conducted by NMFS in 
Cook Inlet since 1993 have resulted in a total of five gray whale 
sightings (Rugh et al., 2005). Although Cook Inlet is not believed to 
comprise either essential feeding or social ground, and gray whales are 
typically not observed within upper Cook Inlet, due to the sightings 
reported during Apache's survey in 2012, Furie includes gray whales in 
their request for takes incidental to seismic survey activities in 
2013.

Pinnipeds

    Two species of pinnipeds may be encountered in Cook Inlet: Harbor 
seal and Steller sea lion.
    Harbor Seals--Harbor seals inhabit the coastal and estuarine waters 
of Cook Inlet. In general, harbor seals are more abundant in lower Cook 
Inlet than in upper Cook Inlet, but they do occur in the upper inlet 
throughout most of the year (Rugh et al., 2005). Harbor seals are non-
migratory; their movements are associated with tides, weather, season, 
food availability, and reproduction. The major haulout sites for harbor 
seals are located in lower Cook Inlet and their presence in the upper 
inlet coincides with seasonal runs of prey species. For example, harbor 
seals are commonly observed along the Susitna River and other 
tributaries along upper Cook Inlet during the eulachon and salmon 
migrations (NMFS, 2003). During aerial surveys of upper Cook Inlet in 
2001, 2002, and 2003, harbor seals were observed 24 to 96 km south-
southwest of Anchorage at the Chickaloon, Little Susitna, Susitna, 
Ivan, McArthur, and Beluga Rivers (Rugh et al., 2005). Many harbor 
seals were observed during the 3D seismic survey conducted under 
Apache's April 2012 IHA, especially when survey operations were 
conducted close to shore. NMFS and Apache do not anticipate 
encountering large haulouts of seals in Area 2--the closest haulout 
site to the action area is located on Kalgin Island, which is 
approximately 22 km away from the McArthur River--but we do expect to 
see curious individual harbor seals; especially during large fish runs 
in the various rivers draining into Cook Inlet.
    Steller Sea Lion--Two separate stocks of Steller sea lions are 
recognized within U.S. waters: An eastern U.S. stock, which includes 
animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska; and a western U.S. stock, which 
includes animals west of Cape Suckling (NMFS, 2008).

[[Page 12164]]

Individuals in Cook Inlet are considered part of the western U.S. 
stock, which is listed as endangered under the ESA. Steller sea lions 
primarily occur in lower, rather than upper Cook Inlet and are rarely 
sighted north of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. Haul-outs and 
rookeries are located near Cook Inlet at Gore Point, Elizabeth Island, 
Perl Island, and Chugach Island (NMFS, 2008). No Steller seal lion 
haul-outs or rookeries are located in the vicinity of the proposed 
seismic survey. Furthermore, no sightings of Steller sea lions were 
reported by Apache during the 2D test program in March 2011. During the 
3D seismic survey, from May 6 to September 30, 2012, one Steller sea 
lion was observed on May 6, two on June 23, and one Steller sea lion 
was observed on August 18, 2012, during a period when the air guns were 
not active. Although Furie has requested takes of Steller sea lions, 
Steller sea lions would be rare in the action area during seismic 
survey operations.
    Furie's application contains information on the status, 
distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the 
species under NMFS jurisdiction mentioned in this document. Please 
refer to the application for that information (see ADDRESSES). 
Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment 
Reports (SAR). The draft Alaska 2013 SAR is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ak2013_draft.pdf.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

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

Potential Effects of Air Gun Sounds on Marine Mammals

    The effects of sounds from air gun pulses might include one or more 
of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-
auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in previous 
NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly 
variable, often depending on species and contextual factors, and can be 
categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al., 1995):
(1) Tolerance
    Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from air guns are 
often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. 
Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances more 
than a few kilometers from operating survey vessels often show no 
apparent response. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed 
sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured 
received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. In 
general, pinnipeds and small odotocetes (toothed whales) seem to be 
more tolerant of exposure to air gun pulses than baleen whales. 
Although various toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have 
been shown to react behaviorally to air gun pulses under some 
conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no overt 
reactions. For example, the available evidence also indicates that Cook 
Inlet beluga whales are less impacted behaviorally by anthropogenic 
sounds compared to marine mammals in more pristine acoustic 
environments (e.g., the Beaufort Sea) given the Cook Inlet population's 
greater experience with anthropogenic sounds.
(2) Behavioral Disturbance
    Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to 
anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions are often shown as: 
changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per 
surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal 
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such 
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., 
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification have the potential to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Examples of 
significant behavioral modifications include:
     Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those 
thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
     Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al., 2007).
    Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa to 
estimate the onset threshold for marine mammal behavioral harassment 
for impulse noises (such as air gun pulses). As explained below, NMFS 
has determined that use of this threshold is appropriate for Furie's 
IHA considering the scientific literature pertaining to this issue and 
the evidence specific to the marine mammal species and populations in 
question.
(3) Masking
    Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, 
which differ among species, but include communication between 
individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, and learning about 
their environment (e.g., predator avoidance) (Erbe and Farmer, 2000; 
Tyack, 2000). Masking, or auditory interference, generally occurs when 
sounds in the environment are louder than, and of a similar frequency 
as, auditory signals an animal is trying to receive. Masking is a 
phenomenon that affects animals that are trying to receive acoustic 
information about their environment, including sounds from other 
members of their species, predators, prey, and sounds that allow them 
to orient in their environment. Masking these acoustic signals can 
disturb the behavior of individual animals, groups of animals, or 
entire populations.
    Masking occurs when noise and signals (that the animal utilizes) 
overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the air gun noise 
generated from the proposed seismic surveys, noise will consist of low 
frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short durations (less 
than one second). Lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to 
affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There is little concern 
regarding masking near the noise source due to the brief duration of 
these pulses and relatively longer silence between air gun shots 
(approximately 12 seconds). However, at long distances (over tens of 
kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and reverberation, the 
durations of air gun pulses can be ``stretched'' to seconds with long 
decays (Madsen et al. 2006), although the intensity of the noise is 
greatly reduced.
    This could affect communication signals used by low frequency 
mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the 
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause 
increased

[[Page 12165]]

stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009); however, 
baleen whales are rarely reported to occur within the action area. 
Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking, at 
least partially, by adjusting their acoustic behavior by shifting call 
frequencies, and/or increasing call volume and vocalization rates. For 
example, blue whales are found to increase call rates when exposed to 
seismic survey noise in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark 
2010). The North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) exposed to 
high shipping noise increase call frequency (Parks et al., 2007), while 
some humpback whales respond to low-frequency active sonar playbacks by 
increasing song length (Miller el al., 2000).
(4) Hearing Impairment
    Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for 
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et 
al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002; 2005). TS can 
be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is 
unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing 
threshold will recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Just like 
masking, marine mammals that suffer from PTS or TTS could have reduced 
fitness in survival and reproduction, either permanently or 
temporarily. Repeated noise exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. 
For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is 
inversely related to the duration of the sound.
    Researchers have studied TTS in certain captive odontocetes and 
pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al., 2007). 
However, there has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone 
permanent hearing damage, i.e., permanent threshold shift (PTS), in 
free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses 
during realistic field conditions.
    Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing 
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound 
must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, 
TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. 
For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing 
sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly 
after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and 
durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine 
mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by 
exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Available data on TTS in marine 
mammals are summarized in Southall et al. (2007).
    To safely avoid the potential for injury, NMFS (1995, 2000) 
concluded that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed 
underwater noise at received levels exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms), respectively. Based on the available scientific 
information, NMFS also assumes that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to 
levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) may experience Level B 
harassment.
    For toothed whales, researchers have derived TTS information for 
odontocetes from studies on captive bottlenose dolphin and beluga 
whale. The experiments show that exposure to a single impulse at a 
received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi, p-p), which is equivalent to 228 
dB re 1 Pa (p-p), resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 
0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the 
pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 
2002). For the one harbor porpoise tested, the received level of airgun 
sound that elicited onset of TTS was lower (Lucke et al., 2009). If 
these results from a single animal are representative, it is 
inappropriate to assume that onset of TTS occurs at similar received 
levels in all odontocetes (cf. Southall et al., 2007). Some cetaceans 
apparently can incur TTS at considerably lower sound exposures than are 
necessary to elicit TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin.
    In pinnipeds, researchers have not measured TTS thresholds 
associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of 
underwater sound. Initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse) 
exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular) 
incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes 
exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Ketten et 
al., 2001). The TTS threshold for pulsed sounds has been indirectly 
estimated as being an SEL of approximately 171 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa\2\[middot]s (Southall et al., 2007) which would be equivalent 
to a single pulse with a received level of approximately 181 to 186 dB 
re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), or a series of pulses for which the highest rms 
values are a few dB lower. Corresponding values for California sea 
lions and northern elephant seals are likely to be higher (Kastak et 
al., 2005).
    No cases of TTS are expected as a result of Furie's proposed 
activities given the strong likelihood that marine mammals would avoid 
the approaching air guns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels 
high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS, and the mitigation 
measures proposed to be implemented during the survey described later 
in this document.
    Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical 
damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be 
total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an 
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 
1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun 
sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of 
airguns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun 
array might incur at least mild TTS, there has been further speculation 
about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to 
airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Gedamke et al., 
2008). Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative 
of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single 
exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit 
PTS.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and 
other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al., 2007). PTS might occur at a 
received sound level at least several dBs above that inducing mild TTS 
if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise 
times. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 
assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as airgun 
pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than 
the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, and probably greater than 6 
dB (Southall et al., 2007).
    Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared 
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during 
the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid 
the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other 
marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but 
their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as 
those of cetaceans, and occasionally they seem to be attracted to 
operating seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010).

[[Page 12166]]

(5) Non-Auditory Physical Effects
    Non-auditory physical effects might occur in marine mammals exposed 
to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory 
physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in 
mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological 
effects, bubble formation, and other types of organ or tissue damage. 
Some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially 
susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed 
sounds. However, there is no definitive evidence that any of these 
effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large 
arrays of air guns, and beaked whales do not occur in the proposed 
project area. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral 
avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some 
odontocetes (including belugas), and some pinnipeds, are especially 
unlikely to incur non-auditory impairment or other physical effects. 
The preliminary distances to the 180 and 190 dB thresholds for the air 
gun array proposed to be used by Furie are provided above in Tables 1 
and 2.
    Therefore, it is unlikely that such effects would occur during 
Furie's proposed survey given the brief duration of exposure and the 
planned monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this 
document.
(6) Stranding and Mortality
    Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosive 
can be killed or severely injured, and the auditory organs are 
especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. 1993; Ketten 1995). Air 
gun pulses are less energetic and their peak amplitudes have slower 
rise times. To date, there is no evidence that serious injury, death, 
or stranding by marine mammals can occur from exposure to air gun 
pulses, even in the case of large air gun arrays.
    However, in numerous past IHA notices for seismic surveys, 
commenters have referenced two stranding events allegedly associated 
with seismic activities, one off Baja California and a second off 
Brazil. NMFS has addressed this concern several times, including in the 
Federal Register notice announcing the 2012 IHA for Apache's seismic 
survey in Cook Inlet, and, without new information, does not believe 
that this issue warrants further discussion. For information relevant 
to strandings of marine mammals, readers are encouraged to review NMFS' 
response to comments on this matter found in 69 FR 74905 (December 14, 
2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 (August 24, 2006), 71 
FR 49418 (August 23, 2006), and 77 FR 27720 (May 11, 2012).
    It should be noted that strandings related to sound exposure have 
not been recorded for marine mammal species in Cook Inlet. Beluga whale 
strandings in Cook Inlet are not uncommon; however, these events often 
coincide with extreme tidal fluctuations (``spring tides'') or killer 
whale sightings (Shelden et al., 2003). For example, in August 2012, a 
group of Cook Inlet beluga whales stranded in the mud flats of 
Turnagain Arm during low tide and were able to swim free with the flood 
tide. No strandings or marine mammals in distress were observed during 
the 2D test survey conducted by Apache in March 2011 and none were 
reported by Cook Inlet inhabitants. Furthermore, no strandings were 
reported during seismic survey operations conducted under Apache's 
April 2012 IHA. As a result, NMFS does not expect any marine mammals 
will incur serious injury or mortality in Cook Inlet or strand as a 
result of Furie's proposed seismic survey.

Potential Effects From Pingers on Marine Mammals

    Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed 
for Furie's 2014 seismic survey in Cook Inlet. The specifications for 
the pingers (source levels and frequency ranges) were provided earlier 
in this document. In general, the potential effects of this equipment 
on marine mammals are similar to those from the airguns, except the 
magnitude of the impacts is expected to be much less due to the lower 
intensity of the source.

Potential Effects From Vessels and Vessel Noise on Marine Mammals

    Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will 
temporarily increase in the action area during Furie's seismic survey 
as a result of the operation of multiple vessels. To minimize the 
effects of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, Furie 
will follow NMFS' Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations and 
will alter heading or speed if a marine mammal gets too close to a 
vessel. In addition, vessels will be operating at slow speed (2-4 
knots) when conducting surveys and in a purposeful manner to and from 
work sites in as direct a route as possible. Marine mammal monitoring 
observers and passive acoustic devices will alert vessel captains as 
animals are detected to ensure safe and effective measures are applied 
to avoid coming into direct contact with marine mammals. Therefore, 
NMFS neither anticipates nor authorizes takes of marine mammals from 
ship strikes.
    Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor 
porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may 
react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or 
were previously harassed by vessels (Richardson, 1995). Beluga whale 
response to vessel noise varies greatly from tolerance to extreme 
sensitivity depending on the activity of the whale and previous 
experience with vessels (Richardson, 1995). Reactions to vessels 
depends on whale activities and experience, habitat, boat type, and 
boat behavior (Richardson, 1995) and may include behavioral responses, 
such as altered headings or avoidance (Blane and Jaakson, 1994; Erbe 
and Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; changes in vocalizations (Lesage et 
al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in dive, surfacing, and 
respiration patterns.
    There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel 
activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson, 1995). 
Generally, sea lions in water show tolerance to close and frequently 
approaching vessels and sometimes show interest in fishing vessels. 
They are less tolerant when hauled out on land; however, they rarely 
react unless the vessel approaches within 100-200 m (330-660 ft; 
reviewed in Richardson, 1995).
    The addition of multiple vessels and noise due to vessel operations 
associated with the seismic survey would not be outside the present 
experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may 
increase locally. Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and 
the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the 
other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity and 
noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or 
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their 
populations.

Potential Effects From Aircraft Noise on Marine Mammals

    Furie plans to utilize aircraft to conduct aerial surveys near 
river mouths in order to identify locations or congregations of beluga 
whales and other marine mammals prior to the commencement of 
operations. The aircraft would not be used every day, but will be used 
for surveys near river mouths. Aerial surveys would fly at an altitude 
of 305 m (1,000 ft) when practicable and weather conditions permit. In 
the event of a marine

[[Page 12167]]

mammal sighting, aircraft would try to maintain a radial distance of 
457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft would avoid 
approaching marine mammals from head-on, flying over or passing the 
shadow of the aircraft over the marine mammals.
    Studies on the reactions of cetaceans to aircraft show little 
negative response (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, reactions 
range from sudden dives and turns and are typically found to decrease 
if the animals are engaged in feeding or social behavior. Whales with 
calves or in confined waters may show more of a response. Generally 
there has been little or no evidence of marine mammals responding to 
aircraft overflights when altitudes are at or above 1,000 ft (305 m), 
based on three decades of flying experience in the Arctic (NMFS, 
unpublished data). Based on long-term studies that have been conducted 
on beluga whales in Cook Inlet since 1993, NMFS expect that there will 
be no effects of this activity on beluga whales or other cetaceans. No 
change in beluga swim directions or other noticeable reactions have 
been observed during the Cook Inlet aerial surveys flown from 600 to 
800 ft. (e.g., Rugh et al., 2000). By applying the operational 
requirements discussed above, sound levels underwater are not expected 
to reach NMFS' harassment thresholds.
    The majority of observations of pinnipeds reacting to aircraft 
noise are associated with animals hauled out on land or ice. There are 
very little data describing the reactions of pinnipeds in water to 
aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995). In the presence of aircraft, 
pinnipeds hauled out for pupping or molting generally became alert and 
then rushed or slipped (when on ice) into the water. Stampedes often 
result from this response and may increase pup mortality due to 
crushing or an increase rate of pup abandonment. The greatest reactions 
from hauled out pinnipeds were observed when low flying aircrafts 
passed directly above the animal(s) (Richardson et al., 1995). Although 
noise associated with aircraft activity could cause hauled out 
pinnipeds to rush into the water, there are no known haul out sites in 
the vicinity of the survey site.
    Therefore, the operation of aircraft during the seismic survey is 
not expected to have effects that could cause significant or long-term 
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. To 
minimize the noise generated by aircraft, Furie would follow NMFS' 
Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations found at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

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

Potential Impacts on Prey Species

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

Potential Impacts to the Benthic Environment

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

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to

[[Page 12168]]

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses.
    For the proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Furie worked with 
NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the 
potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity as a result 
of the survey activities.

Mitigation Measures Proposed in Furie's IHA Application

    For the proposed mitigation measures, Furie listed the following 
protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey in Cook Inlet.
(1) Operation of Mitigation Air Gun at Night
    Furie proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations. 
Nighttime operations would only be initiated if a ``mitigation air 
gun'' (typically the 10 in\3\) has been continuously operational from 
the time that PSO monitoring has ceased for the day to alert marine 
mammals of the presence of the seismic survey. The mitigation airgun 
would operate on a longer duty cycle than the full airgun arrays, 
firing every 30-45 seconds. Seismic activity would not ramp up from an 
extended shut-down (i.e., when the airgun has been down with no 
activity for at least 10 minutes) during nighttime operations and 
survey activities would be suspended until the following day because 
dedicated PSOs would not be on duty and any unseen animals may be 
exposed to injurious levels of sound from the full array. At night, the 
vessel captain and crew would maintain lookout for marine mammals and 
would order the airgun(s) to be shut down if marine mammals are 
observed in or about to enter the established safety radii.
(2) Designation of Disturbance and Safety Zones
    NMFS typically identifies two zones to help with mitigation, 
monitoring, and analyses. One zone is used for shutdowns to limit 
marine mammal exposure to received sound levels that are >=180 
dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa for cetaceans and >=190 dBrms 
re 1 [mu]Pa for pinnipeds, which is based on the assumption that SPLs 
received at levels lower than these will not injure these animals or 
impair their hearing abilities. In their IHA application, Furie refers 
to the distances to the 180/190 dB thresholds as the ``exclusion'' 
radii; however, to avoid confusion with other actions, for consistency 
NMFS will refer to this zone as the ``safety zone'' for the remainder 
of this notice. NMFS also typically identifies the zone between the 
180/190 dB isopleths and the 160 dB threshold where harassment in the 
form of behavioral disturbance may occur. Furie's IHA application 
refers to this area as the ``safety zone;'' however, to avoid confusion 
with other actions where ``safety zone'' has meant the area above 180/
190 dB, NMFS will use the term ``disturbance zone.''
    The proposed survey would use airgun sources composed of two 2400 
in\3\ airguns, a single 440 in\3\ to 1800 in\3\ airgun, and a single 10 
in\3\ airgun. Safety and disturbance radii for the sound levels 
produced by the planned airgun configurations and pinger have been 
estimated (see Table 4) and would be used for mitigation purposes (see 
description of measures below) during the seismic survey activities. 
However, Furie plans on conducting a sound source verification study 
for this project prior to the start of the seimic survey, which will be 
used to modify the distances to the actual isopleths, if necessary.

                     Table 4--Preliminary Distances to Safety and Disturbance Zone Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source                          190 dB                    180 dB                   160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinger..............................  1 m.....................  3 m....................  25 m.
10 in\3\ Airgun.....................  10 m....................  10 m...................  280 m.
440 in\3\ Airgun....................  100 m...................  310 m..................  2.5 km.
2400 in\3\ Airgun...................  380 m...................  1.4 km.................  9.5 km.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the required mitigation associated with the safety 
and disturbance zones (which are described below), pursuant to Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game restrictions, there would be a 1.6 km 
setback of sound source points from the mouths of any anadromous 
streams.
    Furie also plans to use dedicated vessels to deploy and retrieve 
the receiving and recording system. Sounds produced by the vessels are 
not expected to exceed ambient sound levels in Cook Inlet. Therefore, 
mitigation related to acoustic impacts from vessels is not expected to 
be necessary.
 (3) Speed and Course Alterations
    If a marine mammal is detected outside the applicable 160 dB 
disturbance zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is 
likely to enter the disturbance zone, changes of the vessel's speed 
and/or direct course would be considered if this does not compromise 
operational safety to increase the distance between the observed marine 
mammal and the disturbance zone. For marine seismic surveys using large 
arrays, course alterations are not typically possible. However, for the 
smaller air gun arrays planned during the proposed site surveys, such 
changes may be possible. After any such speed and/or course alteration 
is begun, the marine mammal activities and movements relative to the 
survey vessel would be closely monitored to ensure that the marine 
mammal does not approach within the disturbance zone. If the mammal 
appears likely to enter the disturbance zone, further mitigative 
actions would be taken, including a power down or shut down of the 
airgun(s).
(4) Power-Downs
    A power-down for mitigation purposes is the immediate reduction in 
the number of operating airguns such that the radii of the 190 dB rms, 
180 dB rms, and 160 dB rms zones are decreased to the extent that an 
observed marine mammal(s) are not in the applicable zone of the full 
array. During a power-down, one air gun, typically the 10 in\3\, 
continues firing. Operation of the 10 in\3\ air gun decreases the radii 
to 10 m, 10 m, and 280 m for the safety and disturbance zones, 
respectively. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to 
alert marine mammals to the presence of the survey vessel in the area.
    The array would be immediately powered down whenever a marine 
mammal is sighted approaching the 160 dB disturbance zone of the full 
array. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the disturbance zone 
when first detected, the airguns would be powered down immediately. If 
a marine mammal is sighted within or about to enter the disturbance 
zone of the single

[[Page 12169]]

mitigation airgun, it would be shut down (see following section).
    Following a power-down, operation of the full airgun array would 
not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the disturbance zone. 
The animal would be considered to have cleared the disturbance zone if 
it:
     Is visually observed to have left the disturbance zone of 
the full array, or
     Has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case 
of pinnipeds or small odontocetes, or
     Has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case 
of large odontocetes and mysticetes.
(5) Shut-Downs
    The operating airgun(s) would be shut down completely if a marine 
mammal approaches or enters the safety radius and a power-down is not 
practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB 
rms, as appropriate. In most cases, this means that the full array, 
including the mitigation airgun would be shut down completely if a 
marine mammal approaches or enters the estimated safety radius around 
the single 10 in\3\ air gun while it is operating during a power down. 
Airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared 
the safety radius. The animal would be considered to have cleared the 
safety radius as described above under power down procedures.
(6) Ramp-Ups
    A ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound 
levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total 
volume of air guns firing until the full volume is achieved. The 
purpose of a ramp-up (or ``soft start'') is to ``warn'' cetaceans and 
pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for 
them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or 
impairment of their hearing abilities.
    During the proposed seismic survey, the seismic operator will ramp 
up the airgun array slowly, at a rate of no more than 6 dB per 5-minute 
period. Ramp-up is used at the start of airgun operations, after a 
power- or shut-down, and after any period of greater than 10 minutes in 
duration without airgun operations (i.e., extended shutdown).
    A full ramp-up after a shut down will not begin until there has 
been a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the 160 dB disturbance 
zone by PSOs to assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire 
zone must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If 
the entire zone is not visible, then ramp-up from a cold start cannot 
begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the zone during the 30-
minute watch prior to ramp-up, ramp-up will be delayed until the marine 
mammal(s) is sighted outside of the zone or the animal(s) is not 
sighted for at least 15-30 minutes: 15 Minutes for small odontocetes 
and pinnipeds (e.g. harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and Steller sea 
lions), or 30 minutes for large odontocetes (e.g., killer whales and 
beluga whales) and mysticetes (gray whales).
(7) Shut-Downs for Aggregations of Marine Mammals and Beluga Cow-Calf 
Pairs
    The following additional protective measures for beluga whale cow-
calf pairs and aggregations of marine mammals are proposed. Whenever an 
aggregation of beluga whales, killer whales, harbor porpoises, gray 
whales, or Steller sea lions (four or more whales of any age/sex 
class), or beluga whale cow-calf pairs are observed approaching the 
160-dB disturbance zone around the survey operations, the survey 
activity would not commence or would shut down, until they are no 
longer present within the 160-dB disturbance zone of seismic surveying 
operations.

Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS

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

Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Proposed

    NMFS considered whether time/area restrictions were warranted. NMFS 
has preliminary determined that such restrictions are not necessary or 
practicable here. Beluga whales remain in Cook Inlet year-round, but 
demonstrate seasonal movement within the Inlet; in the summer and fall, 
they concentrate in upper Cook Inlet's rivers and bays, but tend to 
disperse offshore and move to mid-Inlet in winter (Hobbs et al., 2005). 
The available information indicates that in the winter months belugas 
are dispersed in deeper waters in mid-Inlet past Kalgin Island, with 
occasional forays into the upper inlet, including the upper ends of 
Knik and Turnagain Arms. Their winter distribution does not appear to 
be associated with river mouths, as it is during the warmer months. The 
spatial dispersal and diversity of winter prey are likely to influence 
the wider beluga winter range throughout the mid-Inlet. Furie expects 
to mobilize crews and equipment for its seismic survey in May 2014, 
which would coincide with the time of year when belugas are located in 
the upper Inlet. In the spring, beluga whales are regularly sighted in 
Knik Arm, which is located in the upper Inlet, beginning in late April 
or early May, coinciding with eulachon runs in the Susitna River and 
Twenty Mile River in Turnagain Arm, and well outside of the area where 
Furie would be conducting seismic surveys. Therefore, NMFS believes 
that the timing and location of the seismic survey, as proposed, will 
avoid areas and seasons that overlap with important beluga whale 
behavioral patterns.
    NMFS also considered whether to require time area restrictions for 
areas identified as home ranges during August through March for 14 
satellite-tracked beluga whales in Hobbs et al., 2005. NMFS has 
preliminarily determined not to require time/area restrictions for 
these areas within the proposed survey area. The areas in question are 
relatively large throughout which belugas are dispersed. In addition, 
data for 14 tracked belugas does not establish that belugas will not 
appear in other areas--particularly during the periods of the year when 
belugas are more dispersed in Cook Inlet. Time/area restrictions for 
these areas thus would not yield a material benefit for the species. 
Such restrictions also are not practicable given the applicant's need 
to survey the areas in question and the need for operational 
flexibility given weather conditions, real-time adjustment of 
operations to avoid marine mammals and other factors.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation 
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of 
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least 
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and 
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included 
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

[[Page 12170]]

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

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

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

Monitoring Measures Proposed in Furie's IHA Application

    The monitoring plan proposed by Apache can be found in section 1.4 
of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based 
on comments or new information received from the public during the 
public comment period. A summary of the primary components of the plan 
follows.
(1) Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring
    Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by 
experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities. 
PSOs would monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near 
the survey vessel during all daylight periods during operation and 
during most daylight periods when airgun operations are not occurring. 
PSO duties would include watching for and identifying marine mammals, 
recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey 
operations, and documenting ``take by harassment.''
    A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard the survey 
vessel to meet the following criteria: (1) 100 Percent monitoring 
coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight; (2) 
maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and (3) maximum of 12 
hours of watch time per day per PSO.
    PSO teams would consist of experienced field biologists. An 
experienced field crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the 
survey vessel. Furie currently plans to have PSOs aboard up to four 
vessels: the two source vessels and two support vessels. Two PSOs would 
be on the source vessels and two PSOs would be on the support vessel to 
observe the safety, power down, and shut down areas. When marine 
mammals are about to enter or are sighted within designated disturbance 
(i.e., 160 dB) zones, airgun or pinger operations would be powered down 
(when applicable) or shut down immediately. The vessel-based observers 
would watch for marine mammals during all periods when sound sources 
are in operation and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the start of 
airgun or pinger operations after an extended shut down.
    Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers would 
be individuals with experience as observers during seismic surveys in 
Alaska or other areas in recent years.
    The observer(s) would watch for marine mammals from the best 
available vantage point on the source and support vessels, typically 
the flying bridge. The observer(s) would scan systematically with the 
unaided eye and 7x50 reticle binoculars. Laser range finders would be 
available to assist with estimating distance. Personnel on the bridge 
would assist the observer(s) in watching for marine mammals.
    All observations would be recorded in a standardized format. Data 
would be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The 
accuracy of the data would be verified by computerized validity data 
checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checks of the 
database. These procedures would allow for initial summaries of the 
data to be prepared during and shortly after the completion of the 
field program, and would facilitate transfer of the data to 
statistical, geographical, or other programs for future processing and 
achieving. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information 
about the sighting would be recorded:
    (A) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from the PSO, apparent reaction to 
activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), 
closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
    (B) Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, ice 
cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
    (C) The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the PSO 
location.
    The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water 
temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun 
glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation 
watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change 
in any of those variables.
(2) Visual Shore-Based Monitoring
    In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, Furie proposes to utilize a 
shore-based station to visually monitor for marine mammals when the 
disturbance radius includes the intertidal area within one mile from 
shore. The shore-based station would follow all safety procedures, 
including bear safety. The location of the shore-based station would 
need to be sufficiently high to observe marine mammals; the PSOs would 
be equipped with pedestal mounted ``big eye'' (20x110) binoculars. The 
shore-based PSOs would scan the area prior to, during, and after the 
air gun operations, and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs 
via radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or 
within the project area.
(3) Aerial-Based Monitoring
    When survey operations occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) a river mouth, 
Furie would conduct aerial surveys utilizing either a helicopter or 
fixed-wing aircraft prior to the commencement of airgun operations in 
order to identify locations where beluga whales congregate. The 
aircraft may also be used at other times, when practicable. Weather and 
scheduling permitting, aerial surveys would fly at an altitude of 305 m 
(1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft would 
attempt to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the 
marine mammal(s). Aircraft would avoid approaching marine mammals from 
head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft over the 
marine mammal(s). By following these operational requirements, sound 
levels underwater are not expected to meet or exceed NMFS harassment 
thresholds (Richardson et al., 1995; Blackwell et al., 2002).
    Based on data collected from Apache during its survey operations 
conducted

[[Page 12171]]

under the April 2012 IHA, NMFS believes that the foregoing monitoring 
measures will allow Furie to identify animals nearing or entering the 
160 db zone with a reasonably high degree of effectiveness.

Reporting Measures

(1) Field Reports
    During the proposed survey program, the PSOs would prepare a report 
each day or at such other interval as the IHA (if issued), or Furie may 
require, summarizing the recent results of the monitoring program. The 
field reports would summarize the species and numbers of marine mammals 
sighted. These reports would be provided to NMFS and to the survey 
operators on a weekly basis. At the end of each month, a summary of the 
weekly reports would be submitted to NMFS.
(2) Technical Report
    The results of Furie's 2014 monitoring program, including estimates 
of ``take'' by harassment (based on presence in the 160 dB harassment 
zone), would be presented in the ``90-day'' and Final Technical 
reports. The Technical Report would include:
    (a) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals);
    (b) analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare);
    (c) species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
    (d) analyses of the effects of survey operations;
     Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could 
affect detectability), such as:
     Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state;
     Closest point of approach versus survey activity state;
     Observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey 
activity state;
     Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey 
activity state;
     Distribution around the source vessels versus survey 
activity state; and
     Estimates of take by harassment based on presence in the 
160 dB disturbance zone.
(3) Comprehensive Report
    Following the survey season, a comprehensive report describing the 
vessel-based, shore-based, aerial-based, and acoustic monitoring 
programs would be prepared. The comprehensive report would describe the 
methods, results, conclusions and limitations of each of the individual 
data sets in detail. The report would also integrate (to the extent 
possible) the studies into a broad based assessment of industry 
activities, and other activities that occur in Cook Inlet, and their 
impacts on marine mammals. The report would help to establish long-term 
data sets that can assist with the evaluation of changes in the Cook 
Inlet ecosystem. The report would attempt to provide a regional 
synthesis of available data on industry activity in this part of Alaska 
that may influence marine mammal density, distribution and behavior.
(4) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA 
(if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
Furie would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately 
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the following 
information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).

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

Exposure Analysis and Estimated Take of Marine Mammals

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral 
harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed marine survey 
program. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are associated with 
noise propagation from the sound sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) 
used in the

[[Page 12172]]

seismic survey; no take is expected to result from vessel strikes.
    Furie requests authorization to take six marine mammal species by 
Level B harassment. These six marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet 
beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas); killer whale (Orcinus orca); 
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); gray whale (Eschrichtius 
robustus); harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi), and Steller sea lion 
(Eumetopias jubatus).
    The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals was described 
in detail in the ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on 
Marine Mammals'' section found earlier in this document. The potential 
effects of sound from the proposed seismic survey might include one or 
more of the following: Tolerance; masking of natural sounds; behavioral 
disturbance; non-auditory physical effects; and, at least in theory, 
temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson et al., 1995). 
The most common and likely impact would be from behavioral disturbance, 
including avoidance of the ensonified area or changes in speed, 
direction, and/or diving profile of the animal. Hearing impairment (TTS 
and PTS) are highly unlikely to occur based on the proposed mitigation 
and monitoring measures that would preclude marine mammals being 
exposed to noise levels high enough to cause hearing impairment.
    For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the 
seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth 
to indicate the onset of Level B harassment. To estimate potential 
exposure of marine mammals to sound generated during seismic survey 
operations, Furie used the 160-dB isopleths measured by Apache in 2012 
and then overlaid those isopleth areas with the density of marine 
mammals in the total area ensonified within those isopleths over the 
time of the surveys. Furie provided a full description of the 
methodology used to estimate takes by harassment in its IHA application 
(see ADDRESSES), which is also provided in the following sections. NMFS 
reviewed and used Furie's exposure analysis and take estimates in our 
analyses.

Basis for Estimating Exposure to Sound Levels at or Exceeding 160 dB

    As stated previously, NMFS considers exposure to impulsive sounds 
at a received level of 160 dBrms re 1[mu]Pa or above to be 
Level B harassment. As described earlier in this notice, impulsive 
sounds would be generated by airgun arrays that would be used to obtain 
geological data during the surveys. The following series of 
calculations and assumptions were applied to estimate potential Level B 
harassment in this application:
    (1) The expected density of each marine mammal species in the 
project area is estimated using the best available data.
    (2) The total estimated number of marine mammals that could 
potentially (without the implementation of mitigation measures) be 
exposed to pulsed sound levels at or exceeding 160 dBrms re 
1[mu]Pa, is calculated by multiplying the density of the marine mammals 
expected to be present by the area that would be ensonified to 160 dB 
or above. The area predicted to be ensonified to >=160 dB is presented 
below in Table 5 for each priority area under two proposed scenarios 
identified by different contractors:

       Table 5--Monthy Area Predicted to by Ensonified to >=160 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Area Ensonified to >=160
                                                       dB (km\2\)
                 Priority area                 -------------------------
                                                 Proposal A   Proposal B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Area 1...............................          890          905
Priority Area 2...............................          880          885
Priority Area 3a..............................          775          865
Priority Area 3b..............................         1050         1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furie has indicated that Priority Area 1 is the highest priority area 
for seismic survey operations in 2014.
    (3) The estimated numbers of marine mammals that may be taken by 
Level B harassment are derived by modifying the number of calculated 
exposures above 160 dB based on the data and information regarding 
site-specific observations of marine mammals and the effects of the 
proposed mitigation measures. Specifically, the following two factors 
are expected to lower the number of animals that are actually exposed 
above 160 dB and taken: (1) The coordination of timing and location of 
the proposed seismic survey to avoid areas where marine mammals 
(particularly Cook Inlet beluga whales) concentrate at certain times of 
the year; and (2) power-down and shut-down procedures that would 
suspend airgun operations when marine mammals are observed in or about 
to enter the 160 dB zone. Of note, as described above in the mitigation 
section, Furie would be utilizing more protective power-down/shut-down 
procedures than are typically employed during seismic survey 
operations. In addition to the regular shut-down for the safety zone, 
Furie would be implementing power-downs in the disturbance zone for all 
marine mammals and special aggregation/cow-calf shut-downs in 
disturbance zone.
    The following subsections describe the estimated densities of 
marine mammals that may occur in the areas where activities are 
planned, and areas of water that may be ensonified by pulsed sounds to 
>=160 dB. The densities presented here are likely to be higher than 
those expected in the project area because the population surveys 
target areas where marine mammals are concentrated (e.g., haulout 
areas, feeding grounds), which are outside of the proposed survey site, 
and, therefore, over-estimate the densities that would be found in the 
open waters of upper Cook Inlet, which is where the survey will take 
place. According to Furie's IHA application, a survey crew will collect 
seismic data 10-12 hours per day over approximately 4 months (120 
days). Furie has identified four ``priority areas'' for surveying with 
each requiring about 30 days to complete. It is important to note that 
environmental conditions (such as ice, wind, and fog) will play a 
significant role in the actual number of operating days; therefore, 
these estimates are conservative in order to provide a basis for the 
probability of encountering these marine mammal species in the action 
area. The timing and location of the survey for each priority area can 
be adjusted to avoid anticipated locations of higher concentrations of 
beluga whales during each month.
Beluga Whales
    Annual surveys of the Cook Inlet beluga whale provide total 
population estimates, but because the whales are not typically 
distributed across the entire survey area, the data do not allow for 
the direct calculation of density across their entire range. 
Assumptions are necessary to estimate density for the proposed seismic 
survey project area.
    A population estimate is developed annually for Cook Inlet beluga 
whales through aerial surveys that cover approximately 30 percent of 
the Cook Inlet surface area using the methods described by Hobbs et al. 
(2000) (Rugh et al., 2000; Rugh et al., 2005). During early June, three 
to seven surveys of upper Cook Inlet and one survey of lower Cook Inlet 
are conducted. During each aerial survey, the entire coastline to 
approximately 3 km offshore and all river mouths are surveyed. 
Transects across the Inlet are flown as well. The daily counts during 
the annual aerial survey are corrected for perception bias, which is 
the possibility of not seeing or counting a visible whale, as well as 
for availability bias, which is the inverse of the probability that a 
typical beluga is at or will appear at the surface during the survey. 
The population estimate for

[[Page 12173]]

the Cook Inlet beluga whales was 312 individuals for 2012 (Shelden et 
al., 2012). Based on the coefficient of variation, Shelden et al. 
(2012) reported a minimum Cook Inlet beluga population estimate of 280 
and an upper confidence limit of 402 individuals in 2012.
    During May and for most of the summer, beluga whales are 
concentrated in the upper Cook Inlet near river mouths in Turnagain 
Arm, Knik Arm, Chickaloon Bay and the Susitna Delta (Rugh et al., 2005; 
Hobbs et al., 2005). The majority of the total population was observed 
in these areas from approximately June through September. In most years 
of the June aerial survey since the mid-1990s, beluga whales were not 
observed south of the East and West Forelands, with the majority of the 
population occurring in the Susitna Delta (Rugh et al., 2010). The 
median daily count of beluga whales in mid Cook Inlet near the proposed 
Furie project area was nine in 1993, one in 1994, and four in 1995. 
There were no beluga whales counted in mid Cook Inlet near the proposed 
Furie project area in any year from 1996 through 2011, until a group of 
21 beluga whales was observed in Trading Bay in June of 2012 for the 
first time since 1995 (Rugh et al., 2005; Shelden et al, 2012; NMFS 
unpublished data). However, in August 2012, an aerial survey did not 
observe any beluga in the Trading Bay area, or even south of the Beluga 
River (Sims et al., 2012).
    Due to the seasonal concentration of beluga whales in certain areas 
of Cook Inlet, accurate densities cannot be calculated by assuming the 
total population is spread evenly throughout the Inlet at all times of 
the year; doing so would greatly overestimate the density of belugas 
expected in most areas of the upper Cook Inlet from May through 
November. Although the actual distribution of the Cook Inlet beluga 
population during the proposed project period is unknown and inherently 
varies over time, some studies and additional observations inform the 
calculation of the best density estimates (see Section 4.1 of Furie's 
IHA application for a more detailed discussion on seasonal distribution 
of beluga whales in Cook Inlet).
    The distribution of beluga whales varies over the course of the 
summer and into the fall, depending largely on the timing of various 
fish runs. Movements of 14 satellite-tagged beluga whales studied from 
2000 to 2003 indicate that 95 percent of the range where belugas are 
found from August through November varies from 982 km\2\ to 2,945 km\2\ 
(Hobbs et al., 2005; Figure A-7). Hobbs et al. (2005) did not predict 
distributions for the months of May, June, or July; however, given that 
the annual aerial surveys in June typically observe the population in 
the Susitna Delta and Chickaloon Bay and that the population remains in 
the Susitna Delta and moves into the Knik Arm around August, the 
predicted distribution for the month of August is generally expected to 
represent the distribution of beluga whales during June and July. Prey 
species, specifically eulachon, arrive in upper Cook Inlet in April 
with major spawning runs in the Susitna River beginning in May (NMFS, 
2008a). The arrival of eulachon appears to draw Cook Inlet beluga 
whales north around mid-April (NMFS, 2008a; Huntington, 2000) and thus 
the distribution of beluga whales in May is assumed to be similar to 
June, July, and August. Accordingly, the 95 percent probability range 
area estimated for May, June, and July is assumed to be equal to the 
area presented for August (982 km\2\).
    The predicted densities set forth below are based on the reasonable 
assumption that 95 percent of the total Cook Inlet beluga whale 
population will be distributed within the 95 percent probability range 
area for any given month (high concentration area) and that the 
remaining 5 percent of the population will occur in other areas of the 
upper Cook Inlet (low concentration area). Figures A-8 through A-23 of 
Furie's IHA application show the high concentration areas (shaded red, 
green and yellow per Hobbs et al., 2005) in relation to the proposed 
project area. The density for the high and low concentration areas is 
calculated by dividing 95 percent of the population estimate by the 
area within the 95 percent range probability kernel of the given month, 
and 5 percent of the population by the remaining area of upper Cook 
Inlet (3840 km\2\ total), respectively. Table 6 presents the population 
density estimate for the high and low concentration areas of upper Cook 
Inlet based on the 2012 population estimate (312) and the 95 percent 
probability range areas published by Hobbs et al. (2005).

      Table 6--Predicted Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Densities Within and Outside of the 95% Probability Kernel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   High
                                                            Area of 95%       concentration    Low concentration
                         Month                              probability      area (number of    area (number of
                                                              (km\2\)         animals/km\2\)     animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May/June/July/August...................................                982             0.3018          0.005458
July...................................................                982             0.3018          0.005458
August.................................................                982             0.3018          0.005458
September..............................................               1605             0.1847          0.006980
October................................................               2945             0.1006          0.01743
November...............................................               2013             0.1472          0.008539
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Goetz et al. (2012a) re-analyzed the data reported in Hobbs et al. 
(2005) and also predicted low numbers of belugas per km\2\ in the 
vicinity of the proposed project area, with the greatest numbers 
occurring along the coastline along Trading Bay and a shallow area 
known as Middle Ground Shoal. The density of belugas in the 2012 
modeling study was derived as the product of the probability of beluga 
presence in a specific location and the expected number of individuals 
when beluga whales are present, using aerial survey data from 1994 to 
2008. Of these years, belugas were only observed near the proposed 
project area in 1994 and 1995.
    Additionally, site-specific observations support the findings 
reported by Hobbs et al. (2005) and Goetz et al. (2012a). Individual 
observers have reported sighting beluga whales ranging from 1 to 75 
individuals (average 16.5) on 24 occasions from 2000 through 2010 in 
the area south of Threemile Creek connecting to Point Possession and 
north of East Forelands connecting to West Forelands (observations were 
made from planes, vessels, shore, and oil platforms; NMFS unpublished 
data). Only 13 of these sightings occurred in the months of June 
through September, and no sightings were reported in May, October or

[[Page 12174]]

November. This average number of beluga whales (16.5) represents 5 
percent of the average population abundance estimate (350) from the 
same time period.
    Marine mammal observations are available for the vicinity of the 
proposed Furie project area as part of monitoring efforts for seismic 
survey work conducted during May through September of 2012 (Apache, 
2013). In 2012, Apache conducted a seismic survey in a 2,719 km\2\ area 
extending from the McArthur River to the Beluga River. During the 2012 
survey, Apache was required to monitor the area for the presence of 
marine mammals and regularly submitted reports to NMFS containing 
marine mammal observations. These observations were made as part of the 
implementation of mitigation measures to avoid potential harassment and 
injury to marine mammal species and not for the purpose of estimating 
population abundance. However, this monitoring data from Apache's 2012 
seismic program represents the best available site-specific 
observational data (Table 7). Monitoring was conducted from land-based, 
vessel-based, and aerial platforms. Belugas whales were most often 
observed in coastal waters and in river mouths along the western side 
of Cook Inlet, as far south as the McArthur River to as far north as 
the Ivan River. Beluga whales were also commonly observed adjacent to 
the shoreline near river mouths, which is consistent with other studies 
conducted in the area (Rugh et al., 2000; Nemeth et al., 2007). Beluga 
whale abundance in the vicinity of the 2012 survey decreased and moved 
north (Beluga River to Susitna River) July through September, when 
beluga whales are more commonly observed in the upper reaches of Cook 
Inlet (e.g., Knik and Turnagain Arms; Hobbs et al., 2005). Dividing the 
number of individuals visually recorded through vessel and land-based 
observers per month by the number of sightings, the average group size 
of beluga whales in May, June, July, and September was 6.9. No belugas 
were observed by vessel and land-based observers in August.

                      Table 7--Beluga Whales Observed During 2012 Seismic Survey Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Estimated number
                         Month                             of individuals       Number of       Assumed average
                                                              observed          sightings          group size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May....................................................                 52                 20                2.6
June...................................................                 77                  7                 11
July...................................................                161                 23                  7
August.................................................                  0                  0                N/A
September..............................................                 35                  5                  7
Average................................................  .................  .................                6.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 7 and 8 show two estimates of the number of individual Cook 
Inlet beluga whales potentially exposed to sound levels at or above the 
Level B harassment threshold each month over the course of the entire 
2014 survey season. Table 17 presents the calculated number of 
potential exposures for other marine mammal species.
    In order to calculate the number of individual beluga whales 
potentially exposed to sound at or above 160 dB, the following factors 
were considered:
    (1) The size of the ensonified area: The size of the ensonified 
area varies for each priority area surveyed and varies with the 
proposals submitted by the surveying contractors. Tables 8 and 9 
present the predicted number of beluga exposures under Proposals A and 
B, respectively. Proposal C is identical to Proposal A and, therefore, 
is not presented in a separate table.
    (2) The month during which work will take place in that area: The 
month during which each priority area would be surveyed depends on the 
available start date for work and the desire to avoid working in areas 
where beluga whales would be present in higher concentrations. Figures 
A-9 to A-24 in Furie's IHA application show work in each priority area 
over four different months, August through November. The distribution 
of beluga whales is presumed to be similar in May, June, and July to 
that observed in August based on the best available data.
    (3) The size of the ensonified area that overlaps predicted high 
and low beluga concentration areas: The fact that there are more 
belugas in some areas compared to others is relevant in different ways 
depending on what type of data is used and how it is analyzed. The 
difference comes down to accounting for the overall density of animals 
and their distribution. Information about beluga distribution and 
abundance is available in different formats. Some data (coarse-scale 
distribution and density estimates) were used to estimate potential 
exposures, but other types of information have more biological 
relevance to the calculation of take.
    The beluga whale densities used to calculate potential exposure are 
based on models that provide density estimates on a monthly time scale 
and assume an even distribution of individuals (per square kilometer) 
throughout each of the predicted concentration areas (high and low 
density). These density estimates are based on the best available data 
and allow for an estimate of the total number of individuals in the 
entire survey area; however, at a finer scale, they do not account for 
the beluga whale's gregarious social behavior or habitat preferences. 
Therefore, the exposure estimates only account for coarse-scale density 
of the species (even distribution across the entire area) whereas 
belugas are social animals that generally travel in groups within 
relatively small portions of their habitat.
    As mentioned above, the degree to which each ensonified area 
overlaps high concentration areas for beluga whales varies from month 
to month. For example, the entire ensonified area for Priority Area 1 
(890 km\2\) in August is within the predicted low concentration area 
for belugas. However, in October the ensonified area for Priority Area 
1 overlaps the high concentration area by 240 km\2\. Therefore, the 
predicted number of beluga whales exposed to sound at or exceeding 160 
dB was calculated for each priority area for each month by multiplying 
the ensonified area by the density of beluga whales in that area, 
accounting for the degree of overlap with low and high beluga 
concentration areas. (Table 8 for Proposal A and Table 9 for Proposal 
B).
    Using Priority Area 1 in August as an example, the predicted number 
of beluga whales exposed to sound at or exceeding 160 dB is calculated 
by multiplying the ensonified area (890 km\2\) by the density of 
belugas in low concentration areas in August (0.005458 belugas per 
km\2\) to equal 4.8 beluga whales (rounded to 5). For Priority Area 1 
in October, the number of belugas was

[[Page 12175]]

calculated by first multiplying the ensonified area overlapping the red 
``high concentration'' area (240 km\2\) by the density of beluga whales 
in that area (0.1006 belugas per km\2\) resulting in 24.1 belugas 
(rounded up to 25) and then by adding this number to the number 
calculated for the remaining low concentration area ([890 km\2\-240 
km\2\] x 0.01743 belugas per km\2\ = 11.3 rounded up to 12). The total 
for Priority Area 1 in October is 37 beluga whales (Table 8). This 
method is carried through for each priority area in each month.

                 Table 8--Predicted Number of Belugas Potentially Exposed to 160 dB (Proposal A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Priority area 1     Priority area 2    Priority area 3a    Priority area 3b
              Month                   (890 km\2\)         (880 km\2\)         (775 km\2\)        (1,050 km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May.............................                   5                  42                   5                   6
June............................                   5                  42                   5                   6
July............................                   5                  42                   5                   6
August..........................                   5                  42                   5                   6
September.......................                   7                  28                   6                   8
October.........................                  37                  37                  36                  76
November........................                   8                  27                   7                  23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same calculations were applied to the Proposal B survey area 
using the methods described above (Table 9).

                 Table 9--Predicted Number of Belugas Potentially Exposed to 160 dB (Proposal B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Priority area 1     Priority area 2    Priority area 3a    Priority area 3b
              Month                   (905 km\2\)         (885 km\2\)         (865 km\2\)        (1,000 km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May.............................                   6                  51                   5                   6
June............................                   6                  51                   5                   6
July............................                   6                  51                   5                   6
August..........................                   6                  51                   5                   6
September.......................                   7                  33                   7                   7
October.........................                  35                  39                  43                  74
November........................                  10                  30                   8                  20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The timing of survey activities in various tracts can be adjusted, 
to some extent, to avoid areas where beluga whales may be expected in 
greater densities. The modeling data are fairly coarse and can be 
expected to vary annually, but the best available anecdotal and 
scientific knowledge shows that belugas would be concentrated in the 
Susitna River delta, Turnagain Arm, and Knik Arm following the timing 
of various fish runs. The number of potential exposures that could 
occur depends upon the time frames during which Furie could accomplish 
the proposed work and the priority of the area. Under Proposal A, the 
proposed project dates would result in an exposure estimate of 58 
beluga whales at the lower end of the range to 186 at the upper end of 
the range. Furie has identified Priority Area 1 as the highest priority 
area for conducting seismic survey operations.
    To estimate takes, the fine-scale distribution of beluga whales 
within discrete portions of their range was used rather than the 
overall density of whales in the larger ``concentration area.'' The 
fine-scale distribution makes it less likely that the total number of 
individuals in given monthly ensonified area would fall within the 
areas actually ensonified during the time that air guns are actually 
fired. In addition, the implementation of mitigation measures when 
animals are reported approaching the 160 dB disturbance zone is 
expected to reduce the number of beluga whales actually exposed to 
sound levels at or above 160 dB (i.e., make it lower than in the 
exposure analysis described above). The estimated number of beluga 
whales (and other marine mammals) that may be taken by Level B 
harassment takes into account the exposure analysis, the effects of 
implementing mitigation measures, and actual observer data from similar 
operations (i.e., Apache's 2012 seismic survey). Recent implementation 
of other mitigation measures in Cook Inlet--shut down of airguns if 
animals approach or occur within the 180/190 dB zone--have been 
effective in reducing harassment. Furthermore, qualified PSOs would 
monitor the 160 dB isopleth zone around the source vessel prior to and 
during all airgun operations. This monitoring would be used to detect 
marine mammals approaching the 160 dB zone and implement power downs 
and shut downs. Airguns would be shut down if groups of four or more 
beluga whales or cow/calf pairs are observed approaching the 160 dB 
zone. The monitoring reports submitted by Apache in 2012 suggest that 
the proposed mitigation measures would be effective at reducing the 
potential for beluga incidental takes. Between June and October, 
Apache's PSOs reported no observed takes of beluga whales during 
seismic survey operations, which included similar monitoring and less 
conservative mitigation measures to those proposed by Furie. However, 
due to the potential for observers missing whales because of the 
conditions in Cook Inlet that make sighting marine mammals challenging 
(i.e., the opacity of the water due to high turbidity) and low surface 
profile of beluga whales, it is not realistic to assume that seismic 
survey activities conducted over a period of months would consistently 
result in zero takes; therefore, Furie has requested a small number of 
beluga whale takes incidental to the proposed activity.
    The requested takes are based on a consideration of the data from 
Apache's monitoring program, the fine-scale distribution analysis of 
beluga whales provided above, the implementation mitigation measures 
before animals

[[Page 12176]]

reach the 160 dB threshold, and the available information on beluga 
distribution and abundance, which estimates that up to two groups of 
nine (18) beluga whales may be harassed incidental to Furie's seismic 
survey operations. This group size is based on the average group size 
reported from vessel and land-based platforms by Apache in 2012, which 
is considered to be the best available information. In estimating 
potential beluga group size, Furie considered all group size data 
reported by Apache and based its group size estimate on data reported 
in June, July, and August. Group sizes reported by Apache in May were 
significantly smaller than those observed in June through August and 
may not accurately reflect average beluga group size in Cook Inlet.
Harbor Porpoise
    A population estimate for the harbor porpoise is available for the 
Gulf of Alaska stock encompassing the area from Cape Suckling to Unimak 
Pass, which includes Cook Inlet (Allen and Angliss, 2012). The most 
current estimate of 31,046 individuals is based on a 1998 harbor 
porpoise aerial survey of the Gulf of Alaska and the 1998 Cook Inlet 
beluga whale aerial survey and was corrected for availability bias in 
2010 (Hobbs and Waite, 2010). According to Hobbs and Waite (2010) the 
survey area for the Gulf of Alaska stock was 158,733 km\2\, and the 
estimated density was 0.196 porpoise per km\2\ across the Gulf of 
Alaska area. Using data specific to Cook Inlet, the Cook Inlet harbor 
porpoise density estimate can be calculated as 0.0389 porpoises per 
km\2\ (Hobbs and Waite, 2010) (Table 10). Both of these estimates are 
greater than the calculated Cook Inlet harbor porpoise density from 
1991 aerial surveys (0.0072 porpoises per km\2\) (Dahlheim et al., 
2000). The 1991 estimate was not corrected for availability bias and 
application of the same correction factor used in Hobbs and Waite 
(2010) results in a density estimate of 0.0214 porpoises per km\2\. The 
average density of harbor porpoise in Cook Inlet, combining the results 
from the two Cook Inlet specific surveys, is 0.0302 porpoise per km\2\ 
(Table 10).

               Table 10--Harbor Porpoise Densities Observed or Calculated From Cook Inlet Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Density
                      Stock and survey year                         Population     Area  (km\2\)    (number of
                                                                     estimate                     animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook Inlet, 1998................................................          \1\737           18948          0.0389
Cook Inlet, 1991................................................          \2\402           18787          0.0214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Population estimate and area from Hobbs and Waite 2010.
\2\ Population estimate reported in Dahlheim et al. 2000 of 136 multiplied by 2.96 correction factor.

    Harbor porpoise are documented during the annual aerial surveys for 
beluga whales, but are generally not observed in the upper Cook Inlet. 
The numbers of harbor porpoises observed in lower Cook Inlet in recent 
surveys are reported in Table 11 (Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). 
The 2011 survey did not report sightings of marine mammals other than 
beluga whales and is not included in this table. The observed number of 
harbor porpoises is multiplied by a 2.96 correction factor and divided 
by the area of the aerial survey each year to estimate harbor porpoise 
densities.

             Table 11--Harbor Porpoise Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Observed                                         Density
                      Year                           number of       Corrected     Area (km\2\)     (number of
                                                     porpoises        numbers                     animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................              86          254.56            5766          0.044
2010............................................              10           29.6             6120          0.0048
2012............................................              11           32.56            6219          0.0052
    Average.....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............          0.018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average of the calculated density from three recent aerial 
surveys (0.018 porpoises per km\2\) and the two published harbor 
porpoise densities for Cook Inlet (0.0389 and 0.0214 porpoises per 
km\2\) is 0.0261 porpoises per km\2\. Using this average as an 
approximation of Cook Inlet harbor porpoise density provides better 
accounts for variability in the areas of Cook Inlet surveyed in each 
study by considering the potential for bias due to some of the surveys 
being for porpoise and some for belugas with incidental porpoise 
sightings, and for inclusion of the most recent data than could be 
accounted for by using only one of the calculated densities.
    Marine mammal observations gathered by Apache during 2012 seismic 
survey work reports the number of individuals visually recorded through 
vessel and land-based observers (Table 12). Dividing the number of 
individuals visually recorded by the number of sightings, the average 
group size in May, June, July, August, and September was 1.37.

                    Table 12--Harbor Porpoises Observed During 2012 Seismic Survey Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Estimated number
                         Month                            of individuals       Number of        Assumed average
                                                             observed          sightings          group size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May...................................................                 49                 41                1.20

[[Page 12177]]

 
June..................................................                 81                 53                1.52
July..................................................                 37                 26                1.42
August................................................                  6                  5                1.2
September.............................................                 15                 10                1.5
    Average...........................................  .................  .................                1.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harbor Seals
    Harbor seal population estimates are available for the Cook Inlet/
Shelikof stock (Allen and Angliss, 2012). The most current estimate of 
22,900 individuals is based on a multi-year study of seasonal movements 
and abundance of harbor seals in Cook Inlet conducted between 2004 and 
2007 (Montgomery et al., 2007). The surveys were conducted only in the 
lower Cook Inlet from the Forelands south to Cape Douglas. Actual 
abundance in the survey area is not reported so presumed density cannot 
be calculated from this information.
    Harbor seals are observed during the annual aerial surveys for 
beluga whales and are the only marine mammals other than belugas to be 
routinely reported in the upper Cook Inlet. The number of harbor seals 
observed in upper Cook Inlet in recent surveys are reported in Table 6-
6 (Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). The 2011 survey did not report 
sightings of marine mammals other than beluga whales and is not 
included in this table. The observed number of harbor seals is divided 
by the area of the upper Cook Inlet surveyed each year to estimate 
harbor seal densities. Harbor seals tend to concentrate and spend much 
of their time in haulout areas in June when these surveys are 
conducted. In contrast, harbor seals are not expected to be present at 
these densities in open water, as they tend to travel in small groups 
or as individuals when not hauled out. Accordingly, the densities 
reported in Table 13 overestimate the actual densities that likely 
occur in the proposed project area.

               Table 13--Harbor Seal Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Observed number                       Density  (number
                          Year                                of seals         Area (km\2\)    of animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009...................................................                387               2036              0.190
2010...................................................                543               2340              0.232
2012...................................................                937               1756              0.534
    Average............................................  .................  .................              0.319
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Marine mammal observations gathered by Apache during 2012 seismic 
survey work reports the number of individual harbor seals visually 
recorded through vessel and land-based observers (Table 14). Dividing 
the number of individuals visually recorded by the number of sightings, 
the average group size in May, June, July, August, and September was 
1.17. This average group size supports the concept of harbor seals in 
the open water traveling in small groups or as individuals, thus at a 
lower density, through the project area.

                      Table 14--Harbor Seals Observed During 2012 Seismic Survey Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Estimated number
                         Month                             of individuals       Number of       Assumed average
                                                              observed          sightings          group size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May....................................................                184                182               1.01
June...................................................                174                166               1.05
July...................................................                115                104               1.11
August.................................................                 31                 29               1.07
September..............................................                 64                 39               1.64
    Average............................................  .................  .................               1.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gray Whale
    Gray whale population estimates are available for the Eastern North 
Pacific stock (Allen and Angliss, 2012). The most current population 
estimate is 19,126 individuals, but most of the stock spends the summer 
in the northern and western Bering and Chukchi seas. During the annual 
aerial surveys for beluga whales, a total of seven individual gray 
whales were observed from 1993 to 2004 in the lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et 
al., 2005). More recently, aerial surveys report only one gray whale in 
lower Cook Inlet and none in upper Cook Inlet in 2009, 2010, and 2012 
(Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). During Apache's 2012 seismic survey 
work in a similar area, at least one individual gray whale was observed 
by protected species observers on four occasions in May, two times in 
June, and again three times in July (Apache, 2013). In sum, gray whales 
are rarely observed in Cook Inlet. For purposes of the analysis set 
forth in this application, and based upon the recent observation by 
Apache, this analysis assumes that two gray whales will potentially 
occur in the project area.

[[Page 12178]]

Killer Whale
    Killer whale population estimates are available for the Gulf of 
Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock. The most 
recent population estimate is 587 individuals for the entire stock with 
136 in the Gulf of Alaska (Allen and Angliss, 2013). Estimates for the 
Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock are 2,347 individuals with 
751 of those in the Prince William Sound area (Allen and Angliss, 
2013).
    Most killer whale sightings are recorded in lower Cook Inlet and 
the observed animals may be from any one of the stocks identified 
above. The number of killer whales observed in Cook Inlet during recent 
aerial surveys for beluga whales are reported in Table 15 below 
(Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). The 2011 survey did not report 
sightings of marine mammals other than beluga whales and is not 
included in this table. The observed number of killer whales is divided 
by the area of the aerial survey each year to estimate density. No 
killer whales were observed by protected species observers during 
Apache's seismic survey from May through September 2012 in a similar 
project area (Apache, 2013).

               Table 15--Killer Whale Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number of killer                      Density (number
                          Year                                 whales          Area (km\2\)    of animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009...................................................                  0               5766                  0
2010...................................................                 33               6120             0.0054
2012...................................................                  3               6219            0.00048
    Average............................................  .................  .................            0.00196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steller Sea Lion
    The population estimate available for the Western DPS of Steller 
Sea Lions is 45,659 (Allen and Angliss, 2013) but the actual number of 
sea lions that occur in Cook Inlet is unknown. During the annual aerial 
surveys for beluga whales, a total of 560 individuals were observed in 
42 sightings from 1993 to 2004 (Rugh et al., 2005). The sea lions are 
considered to be undercounted in these surveys, however, because 
researchers were mainly scanning the water and not shore areas. The 
numbers of Steller Sea lions observed in Cook Inlet in recent surveys 
are reported in Table 16 (Shelden et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). All sea 
lions were observed in lower Cook Inlet. The observed number of sea 
lions is divided by the area of the aerial survey each year to estimate 
densities. The 2011 survey did not report sightings of marine mammals 
other than beluga whales and is not included in this table. During 
seismic survey work from May through September 2012 in a similar 
project area, one individual Steller sea lion was observed in May, two 
in June, and one in August (Apache, 2013).

             Table 16--Steller Sea Lion Densities Based on Observations During Annual Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of                        Density
                              Year                                  Steller Sea    Area (km\2\)     (number of
                                                                       Lions                      animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................................              39            5766        0.00676
2010............................................................               1            6120        0.000163
2012............................................................              65            6219        0.0105
Average.........................................................  ..............  ..............        0.00579
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other marine mammals, the densities reported are not as 
seasonally dependent as for belugas, so the predicted density of 
animals is multiplied across the entire project area and is not 
reported on a monthly basis (Table 17). The largest exposure area of 
1,925 km2 was used to calculate for Proposal A.
    The actual number of marine mammals that may be incidentally taken 
will be much less than the number potentially exposed due to the 
implementation of a suite of mitigation measures (Section 1.3 of 
Furie's IHA application). Similar measures used by Apache in this area 
resulted in 13 observed instances of harbor seals within the 160 dB 
zone, four reports of harbor porpoises within the 160 dB zone and no 
observed reports of any other marine mammals, including belugas, inside 
the 160 dB zone during May through September 2012 (Apache, 2013). The 
final estimates of the number of marine mammals (including beluga 
whales) that may be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed 
project, after mitigation measures and other information are taken into 
account, are presented in Table 18.

               Table 17--Estimated Number of Other Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to >=160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Average
                                                                      density       Ensonified       Number of
                             Species                                (number of     area (km\2\)     individuals
                                                                  animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Porpoise.................................................          0.0261            1925             51.
Harbor Seal.....................................................           0.319            1925            614.
Gray Whales.....................................................         unknown            1925   assumed at 2.
Killer Whales...................................................         0.00196            1925              4.
Steller Sea Lions...............................................         0.00579            1925             12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12179]]

Proposed Incidental Takes

    Cetaceans--Effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be 
restricted to avoidance of an area around the seismic survey and short-
term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level 
B harassment.''
    Using the 160 dB criterion, the requested take numbers of 
individual cetaceans exposed to sounds> 160 dBrms re 1 
[mu]Pa represent varying proportions of the populations of each species 
in Cook Inlet (Table 18). For Cook Inlet beluga whales, Furie requests 
18 takes by Level B harassment. The proposal to power down air guns 
when animals approach the 160 dB disturbance zone and shut down air 
guns when aggregations of marine mammals or cow-calf pairs approach the 
disturbance zone would substantially reduce the potential for takes 
incidental to seismic survey activities. Therefore, the requested 
number of takes is based on the assumption that the implementation of 
mitigation and monitoring would significantly reduce the number of 
takes to below the estimated exposures above 160 dB that were 
calculated without consideration of mitigation, though not completely 
eliminate, the potential for incidental harassment. In summary, the 
number of beluga whale takes requested is based, in part, on the 
average number of sightings and group size estimated over the course of 
the seismic survey conducted by Apache in 2012, as well as the seasonal 
distribution and habitat use of belugas in Cook Inlet, the assumption 
that belugas would avoid approaching the area during survey activities, 
and the effective implementation of mitigation measures. This number is 
approximately 6 percent of the population of approximately 312 animals 
(Shelden et al., 2012). For other cetaceans that might occur in the 
vicinity of the seismic survey in Cook Inlet, the requested takes 
represent an even smaller percentage of their respective populations. 
The requested takes of 4 killer whales and 25 harbor porpoises 
represent 0.7 percent and 0.08 percent of their respective populations 
in the proposed action area. The requested takes of 2 gray whales 
represents 0.01 percent of their population.
    Pinnipeds--Two pinniped species may be encountered in the proposed 
action area, but the harbor seal is likely to be the more abundant 
species in this area. The number of takes requested for individuals 
exposed to sounds at received levels> 160 dBrms re 1 [mu]Pa 
during the proposed seismic survey are as follows: harbor seals (160) 
and Steller sea lions (12). These numbers represent 0.7 percent and 
0.02 percent of their respective populations in the proposed action 
area.

                                       Table 18--Requested Number of Takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                             Species                                 Requested      Population      Percent of
                                                                       Takes         Abundance      Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whales...................................................              18             312             5.8
Harbor seals....................................................             160          22,900             0.7
Harbor porpoises................................................              25          31,783            0.08
Gray whales.....................................................               2          19,126            0.01
Killer whales...................................................               4           2,934             0.1
Steller sea lions...............................................              12          45,659            0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``...an 
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.'' In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers 
a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) the number of 
anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated 
injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B 
harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.
    Given the required mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries 
or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Furie's proposed 
seismic survey in Cook Inlet, and none are proposed to be authorized. 
Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing 
impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects. 
The small number of takes that are anticipated are expected to be 
limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment. Although it is 
possible that some marine mammals individuals may be exposed to sounds 
from seismic survey activities more than once, the duration of these 
multi-exposures is expected to be low since both the animals and the 
survey vessels will be moving constantly in and out of the survey area 
and the seismic airguns do not operate continuously all day, but for a 
few hours at a time totaling about 12 hours a day.
    Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and 
harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually 
assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are 
those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing 
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. When in the 
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive 
to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 6-12 mi (10-20 km) of 
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al., 2005). However, 
as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed to anthropogenic 
sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. Accordingly, NMFS does 
not find this data determinative here. Also, due to the dispersed 
distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during winter and the 
concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from late April 
through early fall, belugas would likely occur in small numbers in the 
proposed survey area during the survey period and few will likely be 
affected by the survey activity in a manner that would be considered 
behavioral harassment. In addition, due to the constant moving of the 
survey vessel, the duration of the noise exposure by cetaceans to 
seismic impulse would be brief. For the same reason, it is unlikely 
that any individual animal would be exposed to high received levels 
multiple times.
    Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, 
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to 
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term 
changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B 
harassment''. Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area 
that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the 
activity are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a very 
small portion of

[[Page 12180]]

marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas 
within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions. 
In addition, although the area where the survey will take place is 
within designated beluga whale critical habitat, beluga whales do not 
appear to congregate in the area for important life functions such as 
feeding, calving, or nursing.
    Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed 
to sound levels sufficient to cause Level B harassment are low 
percentages of the population sizes in Cook Inlet, as shown in Table 
18.
    Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated 
marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, and shut downs or power downs 
when marine mammals are seen within or approaching the 160 dB zone will 
further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing 
sensitivity. In all cases, the effects of the seismic survey are 
expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence. 
Therefore, the exposure of cetaceans to sounds produced by the seismic 
survey is not anticipated to have an effect on annual rates or 
recruitment or survival, and therefore will have a negligible impact on 
affected cetacean species.
    Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed 
marine surveys more than once during the time frame of the project. 
However, as discussed previously, due to the constant moving of the 
survey vessel, the probability of an individual pinniped being exposed 
to sound multiple times is much lower than if the source is stationary. 
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects 
on pinnipeds are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a 
limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in 
behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment''. 
Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is 
surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity 
are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a very small 
portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and 
other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary 
biological functions. In addition, the area where the survey will take 
place is not known to be an important location where pinnipeds haulout. 
The closest known haulout site is located on Kalgin Island, which is 
about 22 km from the McArther River. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by the 
proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet is not expected to result in more 
than Level B harassment and will have no effect on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival, and therefore is anticipated to have no more 
than a negligible impact on the affected species.

Small Numbers

    The requested takes proposed to be authorized represent 5.8 percent 
of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 312 animals 
(Shelden et al., 2012), 0.1 percent of the combined Alaska resident 
stock and Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering Sea stock of 
killer whales (2,347 residents and 587 transients), 0.01 percent of the 
Eastern North Pacific stock of approximately 19,126 gray whales, and 
0.08 percent of the combined Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet stocks of 
approximately 31,783 harbor porpoises. The take requests presented for 
harbor seals represent 0.7 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of 
approximately 22,900 animals. The requested takes proposed for Steller 
sea lions represent 0.02 percent of the western stock of approximately 
45,659 animals. These take estimates represent the percentage of each 
species or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment 
if each animal is taken only once. In each case, the numbers of marine 
mammals taken is small relative to the affected species or stocks.

Conclusion

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

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

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the 
authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the 
availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. 
NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as: 
An impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to 
reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a 
harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to 
abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence 
users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals 
and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 
mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine 
mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the 
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an 
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native 
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with 
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates 
Native traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to 
younger generations (NOAA, 2007). However, due to dramatic declines in 
the Cook Inlet beluga whale population, on May 21, 1999, legislation 
was passed to temporarily prohibit (until October 1, 2000) the taking 
of Cook Inlet belugas under the subsistence harvest exemption in 
section 101(b) of the MMPA without a cooperative agreement between NMFS 
and the affected Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs) (Public Law No. 
106-31, section 3022, 113 Stat. 57,100).. That prohibition was extended 
indefinitely on December 21, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-553, section 1(a)(2), 
114 Stat. 2762). NMFS subsequently entered into six annual co-
management agreements (2000-2003, 2005-2006) with the Cook Inlet Marine 
Mammal Council, an ANO representing Cook Inlet beluga hunters, which 
allowed for the harvest of 1-2 belugas. On October 15, 2008, NMFS 
published a final rule that established long-term harvest limits on the 
Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be taken by Alaska Natives for 
subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits harvest for a 
5-year period (2008-2012), if the average abundance for the Cook Inlet 
beluga whales from the prior five years (2003-2007) is below 350 
whales. The next 5-year period that could allow for a harvest (2013-
2017), would require the previous five-year average (2008-2012) to be 
above 350 whales.
    There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in 
Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives 
who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of 
the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna River.
    Furie concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the size of the affected 
area, mitigation measures, and input from the consultations Alaska 
Natives should result in the proposed action having no

[[Page 12181]]

effect on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. 
Furie and NMFS recognize the importance of ensuring that ANOs and 
federally recognized tribes are informed, engaged, and involved during 
the permitting process and will continue to work with the ANOs and 
tribes to discuss operations and activities.
    Prior to the publication of the proposed IHA, NMFS contacted the 
local Native Villages to inform them of the upcoming availability of 
the Federal Register notice and the opening of the public comment 
period.
    NMFS anticipates that any effects from Furie's proposed seismic 
survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga 
whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be 
short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in 
behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the 
authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the 
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to 
meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or 
avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3) 
placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the 
subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other 
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow 
subsistence needs to be met. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed regulations will not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal stocks for 
subsistence uses.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the 
ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area: 
The Cook Inlet beluga whale and Steller sea lion. In addition, the 
proposed action would occur within designated critical habitat for the 
Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has 
begun consultation with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources 
Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to Furie 
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation 
will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment, pursuant 
to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a 
significant effect on the human environment. This analysis will be 
completed prior to the issuance or denial of the IHA.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to Furie's seismic 
survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
    IHA language is provided next.
    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 
issued). The language contained in the draft IHA is not intended for 
codification and would not be published in the Code of Federal 
Regulations, if issued.
    1. This Authorization is valid from May 1, 2014, through April 30, 
2015.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for Furie's activities 
associated with seismic survey operations that shall occur within the 
areas between Tyonek and the Forelands as denoted in Figure A-2 of 
Furie's IHA application to NMFS.
    3. Species Authorized and Level of Take
    a. The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment 
only, is limited to the following species in the waters of Cook Inlet:
    i. Odontocetes: 18 beluga whales; 25 harbor porpoise; and 4 killer 
whales.
    ii. Mysticetes: 2 gray whales.
    iii. Pinnipeds: 160 harbor seals and 12 Steller sea lions.
    iv. If any marine mammal species are encountered during seismic 
activities that are not listed in conditions 3.a.i., ii., or iii. for 
authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels 
(SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), then the 
Holder of this Authorization must alter speed or course, powerdown or 
shut-down the sound source to avoid take.
    b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment) serious injury, or 
death of any of the species listed in condition 3.a. or the taking of 
any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may 
result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this 
Authorization.
    c. If the number of detected takes of any marine mammal species 
listed in condition 3.a. is met or exceeded, Furie shall immediately 
cease survey operations involving the use of active sound sources 
(e.g., airguns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
    4. The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the 
following acoustic sources (or sources with comparable frequency and 
intensity):
    i. Two airgun arrays, each with a capacity of 2,400 in\3\;
    ii. A 1,800 in\3\airgun arrays;
    iii. A 440 in\3\ airgun array;
    iv. A 10 in\3\ airgun;
    v. A Scott Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) transceiver; and
    vi. A Lightweight Release USBL transponder.
    5. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under 
this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS or his 
designee.
    6. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, or 
his designee at least 48 hours prior to the start of seismic survey 
activities (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this 
Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as 
possible).
    7. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements: The Holder of this 
Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation and 
monitoring requirements when conducting the specified activities to 
achieve the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species 
or stocks:
    a. Utilize a sufficient number of NMFS-qualified, vessel-based 
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) (except during meal times and 
restroom breaks, when at least one PSO shall be on watch) to visually 
watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessels 
during daytime operations (from nautical twilight-dawn to nautical 
twilight-dusk) and before and during start-ups of sound sources day or 
night. Two PSOs will be on each source vessel, and two PSOs will be on 
the support vessel to observe the safety and disturbance zones. PSVOs 
shall have access to reticle binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), big-eye 
binoculars (25xI50), and night vision devices. PSO shifts shall last no 
longer than 4 hours at a time. PSOs shall also make observations during 
daytime periods when the sound sources are not operating for comparison 
of animal abundance and behavior, when feasible. When practicable, as 
an additional means of visual observation, Furie's vessel crew may also 
assist in detecting marine mammals.
    b. In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, utilize a shore-based 
station to visually monitor for marine mammals.

[[Page 12182]]

The shore-based station will follow all safety procedures, including 
bear safety. The location of the shore-based station will need to be 
sufficiently high to observe marine mammals; the PSOs would be equipped 
with pedestal mounted ``big eye'' (20 x 110) binoculars. The shore-
based PSOs would scan the area prior to, during, and after the survey 
operations involving the use of sound sources, and would be in contact 
with the vessel-based PSOs via radio to communicate sightings of marine 
mammals approaching or within the project area.
    c. Weather and safety permitting, aerial surveys shall be 
conducted. Surveys are to be flown even if the airguns are not being 
fired. If weather or safety conditions prevent Furie from conducting 
aerial surveys, seismic survey operations may proceed subject to the 
terms and conditions of the IHA.
    i. When survey operations occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a river 
mouth, Furie shall conduct aerial surveys to identify large 
congregations of beluga whales and harbor seal haul-outs.
    ii. Aerial surveys may be conducted from either a helicopter or 
fixed-wing aircraft. A fixed-wing aircraft may be used in lieu of a 
helicopter. If flights are to be conducted with a fixed-wing aircraft, 
it must have adequate viewing capabilities, i.e., view not obstructed 
by wing or other part of the plane.
    iii. Weather and safety permitting, aerial surveys will fly at an 
altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal sighting, 
aircraft will attempt to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) 
from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft will avoid approaching marine 
mammals from head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft 
over the marine mammal(s).
    d. PSOs shall conduct monitoring while the air gun array and nodes 
are being deployed or recovered from the water.
    e. Record the following information when a marine mammal is 
sighted:
    i. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and 
behavioral pace;
    ii. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel 
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up 
or power-down), Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun 
glare; and
    iii. The data listed under Condition 7.e.ii. shall also be recorded 
at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch 
whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
    f. Establish a 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) ``safety zone'' for marine mammals before the full 
array (2400 in\3\) is in operation; and a 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) 
and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) safety zone before a single airgun (10 
in\3\) is in operation, respectively. Prior to the commencement of 
survey activities, a sound source verification will be conducted to 
determine site-specific sound attenuation and confirm the appropriate 
180 and 190 dB safety zones, and 160 dB disturbance zones.
    g. Visually observe the entire extent of the safety zone (180 dB re 
1 [micro]Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] for 
pinnipeds) using NMFS-qualified PSOs, for at least 30 minutes (min) 
prior to starting the airgun array (day or night). If the PSO finds a 
marine mammal within the safety zone, Furie must delay the seismic 
survey until the marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSO sees a 
marine mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSO 
shall wait 30 min. If the PSO sees no marine mammals during that time, 
they should assume that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. If 
for any reason the entire radius cannot be seen for the entire 30 min 
(i.e., rough seas, fog, darkness), or if marine mammals are near, 
approaching, or in the safety zone, the airguns may not be ramped-up.
    h. Implement a ``ramp-up'' procedure when starting up at the 
beginning of seismic operations or any time after the entire array has 
been shut down for more than 10 min, which means start the smallest 
sound source first and add sound sources in a sequence such that the 
source level of the array shall increase in steps not exceeding 
approximately 6 dB per 5-min period. During ramp-up, the PSOs shall 
monitor the safety zone, and if marine mammals are sighted, a power-
down, or shutdown shall be implemented as though the full array were 
operational. Therefore, initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown 
requires that the PSOs be able to visually observe the full safety zone 
as described in Condition 7(f) (above).
    i. Alter speed or course during seismic operations if a marine 
mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to 
enter the relevant safety zone. If speed or course alteration is not 
safe or practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still 
appears likely to enter the safety zone, further mitigation measures, 
such as a power-down or shutdown, shall be taken.
    j. Power-down or shutdown the sound source(s) if a marine mammal is 
detected within, approaches, or enters the relevant safety zone. A 
shutdown means all operating sound sources are shut down (i.e., turned 
off). A power-down means reducing the number of operating sound sources 
to a single operating 10 in\3\ airgun, which reduces the safety zone to 
the degree that the animal(s) is no longer in or about to enter it.
    k. Following a power-down, if the marine mammal approaches the 
smaller designated safety zone, the sound sources must then be 
completely shut down. Seismic survey activity shall not resume until 
the PSO has visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the safety 
zone and is not likely to return, or has not been seen within the 
safety zone for 15 min for species with shorter dive durations (small 
odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min for species with longer dive 
durations (large odontocetes, including killer whales and beluga whales 
and mysticetes).
    l. Following a power-down or shutdown and subsequent animal 
departure, survey operations may resume following ramp-up procedures 
described in Condition 7(h).
    m. Marine geophysical surveys may continue into night and low-light 
hours if such segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the entire 
relevant safety zones can be effectively monitored visually (i.e., 
PSO(s) must be able to see the extent of the entire relevant safety 
zone).
    n. No initiation of survey operations involving the use of sound 
sources is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during low-
light hours (such as in dense fog or heavy rain).
    o. If any marine mammal is visually sighted approaching or within 
the 160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the 
sound source(s) shall be powered down in accordance with the Condition 
7.j. until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone.
    p. Whenever aggregations or groups of marine mammals (beluga 
whales, killer whales, gray whales, harbor porpoises, and Steller sea 
lion) or beluga cow/calf pairs are detected approaching or within the 
160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound 
source(s) shall be shut-down until the animals are no longer present 
within the 160-dB zone. An aggregation or group of marine mammals shall 
consist of four or more individuals of any age/sex class.

[[Page 12183]]

    q. Furie must not operate airguns within 10 miles (16 km) of the 
mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River 
to the Little Susitna River) between mid-April and mid-October (to 
avoid any effects to belugas in an important feeding and potential 
breeding area).
    r. Seismic survey operations involving the use of air guns and 
pingers must cease if takes of any marine mammal are met or exceeded.
    8. Reporting Requirements: The Holder of this Authorization is 
required to:
    a. Submit a weekly field report, no later than close of business 
(Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic 
survey activities take place. The field reports will summarize species 
detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, 
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine 
mammals taken.
    b. Submit a monthly report, no later than the 15th of each month, 
to NMFS' Permits and
    Conservation Division for all months during which in-water seismic 
survey activities occur. These reports must contain and summarize the 
following information:
    i. Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions 
(including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and associated 
activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal sightings;
    ii. Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and 
behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity 
(number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all 
monitoring activities;
    iii. An estimate of the number (by species) of: A. pinnipeds that 
have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) 
at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) 
and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific 
behaviors those individuals exhibited; and B. cetaceans that have been 
exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at 
received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) 
and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of any specific 
behaviors those individuals exhibited.
    iv. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: 
(A) terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take 
Statement (ITS); and (B) mitigation measures of the Incidental 
Harassment Authorization. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall 
confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any 
conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for 
minimizing the adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act-
listed marine mammals.
    c. Submit a draft Technical Report on all activities and monitoring 
results to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division within 90 days of 
the completion of the Furie survey. The Technical Report will include:
    i. Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals);
    ii. Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare);
    iii. Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
    iv. Analyses of the effects of survey operations;
    v. Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without 
seismic survey activities (and other variables that could affect 
detectability), such as: A. initial sighting distances versus survey 
activity state; B. closest point of approach versus survey activity 
state; C. observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey 
activity state; D. numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey 
activity state; E. distribution around the source vessels versus survey 
activity state; and F. estimates of take by Level B harassment based on 
presence in the 160 dB harassment zone.
    d. Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after 
receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS decides that 
the draft report needs no comments, the draft report shall be 
considered to be the final report.
    e. Furie must immediately report to NMFS if 18 belugas are detected 
within the 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) disturbance zone during seismic 
survey operations to allow NMFS to consider making necessary 
adjustments to monitoring and mitigation.
    9.a. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this 
Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury 
or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 
entanglement), Furie shall immediately cease the specified activities 
and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his 
designees, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report 
must include the following information:
    i. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    ii. The name and type of vessel involved;
    iii. The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
    iv. Description of the incident;
    v. Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    vi. Water depth;
    vii. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    viii. Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    ix. Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    x. The fate of the animal(s); and
    xi. Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is 
available).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Furie to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Furie may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
    b. In the event that Furie discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
Furie will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his 
designees, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline. The report must 
include the same information identified in the Condition 9(a) above. 
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 
incident. NMFS will work with Furie to determine whether modifications 
in the activities are appropriate.
    c. In the event that Furie discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in Condition 2 
of this Authorization (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with 
moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Furie shall 
report

[[Page 12184]]

the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, his designees, the NMFS Alaska 
Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773), and the Alaska Regional Stranding 
Coordinators within 24 hours of the discovery. Furie shall provide 
photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding 
Network. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances 
of the incident.
    10. Furie is required to comply with the Reasonable and Prudent 
Measures and Terms and Conditions of the ITS corresponding to NMFS' 
Biological Opinion issued to both U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources.
    11. A copy of this Authorization and the ITS must be in the 
possession of all contractors and PSOs operating under the authority of 
this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
    12. Penalties and Permit Sanctions: Any person who violates any 
provision of this Incidental Harassment Authorization is subject to 
civil and criminal penalties, permit sanctions, and forfeiture as 
authorized under the MMPA.
    13. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the 
authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the 
species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or 
stocks for subsistence uses.

Request for Public Comments

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

    Dated: February 26, 2014.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04770 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P