77836 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

correlate heart rate with activity and an 

optical tracking system which detects 

markers worn by the subject. 

Participants will be asked to complete a 

paper survey once data is collected for 

the research. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0693–0083. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission, 

extension of a current information 

collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

240. 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 40 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

IV. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting public comments to 

permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) 

Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the 

accuracy of our estimate of the time and 

cost burden for this proposed collection, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (d) Minimize the 

reporting burden on those who are to 

respond, including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. We will include or 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this ICR. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Departmental PRA Clearance Officer, Office 

of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, 

Commerce Department. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21837 Filed 9–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE106] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Furie Operating 

Alaska, LLC Natural Gas Activities in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued two incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHAs) to 

Furie Operating Alaska, LLC (Furie) to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 

during natural gas activities in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska. 

DATES: These authorizations are 

effective from September 13, 2024 

through September 12, 2025 for year 1 

activities, and September 13, 2025 

through September 12, 2026 for year 2 

activities. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-oil-and-gas. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leah Davis, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) 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 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

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) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the takings. The definitions 

of all applicable MMPA statutory terms 

cited above are included in the relevant 

sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On July 19, 2023, NMFS received a 

request from Furie for two consecutive 

IHAs to take marine mammals 

incidental to natural gas activities in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on April 

5, 2024. Furie’s request is for take of 12 

species of marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment and, for harbor seals, Level 

A harassment. Neither Furie nor NMFS 

expect serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

From September 13, 2024, through 

September 12, 2025 (year 1), and from 

September 13, 2025 through September 

12, 2026 (year 2), Furie is planning to 

conduct the following natural gas 

activities in Middle Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

In year 1, Furie proposes to relocate the 

Enterprise 151 jack-up production rig 

(Enterprise 151 or rig) to the Julius R. 

Platform (JRP) site, install up to two 

conductor piles using an impact 

hammer, and conduct production 

drilling of up to two natural gas wells 

at the JRP with the Enterprise 151 rig (or 

a similar rig) across 45–180 days. During 

year 2, Furie proposes to relocate the 

Enterprise 151 rig to the JRP site again, 

potentially install one to two conductor 

piles using an impact hammer 

(depending on whether either or both of 

these piles are installed or not during 

year 1), and conduct additional 

production drilling at the JRP. Furie 

proposes to conduct the rig towing and 

pile driving activities between April 1 

and November 15 each year, but if 

favorable ice conditions occur outside of 

that period, it may tow the rig or pile 

drive outside of that period. Noise 

produced by rig towing and installation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77837 

of the conductor piles may result in 

take, by Level B harassment, of marine 

mammals, and for harbor seals, also 

Level A harassment. Thus, references to 

tugging activities herein refer to 

activities where tugs are under load 

with the rig. 

A detailed description of the planned 

tugging and pile driving project is 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (89 FR 51102, June 

14, 2024). Since that time, no changes 

have been made to the planned 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

two consecutive IHAs to Furie was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 14, 2024 (89 FR 51102). That notice 

described, in detail, Furie’s activity, the 

marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activity, and the 

anticipated effects on marine mammals. 

In that notice, we requested public 

input on the request for authorization 

described therein, our analyses, the 

proposed authorizations, and any other 

aspect of the notice of proposed IHAs, 

and requested that interested persons 

submit relevant information, 

suggestions, and comments. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received comments from 

Furie, Friends of Animals (FoA), and a 

member of the public. Further, U.S. 

Geological Survey provided a recent 

paper that its researchers co-authored 

(Himes Boor et al. 2022) that found that 

Cook Inlet beluga whale population 

declines are likely due to both low 

survival rates and low birth rates. All 

relevant, substantive comments, and 

NMFS’ responses, are provided below 

and are organized by topic. The 

comments and recommendations are 

available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. Please see the comment 

submissions for full details regarding 

the recommendations and supporting 

rationale. 

Comment 1: Furie stated that the 

notice of the proposed IHA (89 FR 

51102, June 14, 2024) characterizes its 

planned activities as ‘‘oil and gas 

activities.’’ Furie stated that it only 

produces natural gas in Cook Inlet and 

is not planning to drill for or produce 

oil. The wells planned during the 

activities target proven natural gas 

reserves and will not intersect oilbearing formations. Furie recommended 

revising the proposed IHA (89 FR 

51102, June 14, 2024) and the Federal 

Register notice to refer to the planned 

activities as ‘‘natural gas production 

activities.’’ 

Response: NMFS concurs that it is 

more appropriate to refer to Furie’s 

activities as natural gas activities rather 

than oil and gas, and has replaced ‘‘oil 

and gas activities’’ with ‘‘natural gas 

activities’’ throughout. Given the 

inclusion of tugging, NMFS did not 

include ‘‘production’’ in the overarching 

term. 

Comment 2: Furie stated that the 

notice of the proposed IHA (89 FR 

51102, June 14, 2024) includes language 

adapted from its application (finalized 

in October 2023), in which it stated that 

it was Furie’s understanding that 

Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (Hilcorp) did not 

intend to operate Enterprise 151 at the 

Tyonek platform in 2024 and 2025. In 

subsequent discussions with Hilcorp 

regarding a potential hand-off of the rig, 

Furie realized that its understanding 

was incorrect. In meetings and emails 

with NMFS in February and March of 

2024, Furie clarified that Hilcorp did 

intend to operate the jack-up rig at the 

Tyonek platform and provided 

additional information to amend its 

planned activities to include towing the 

rig from the Tyonek platform to Furie’s 

JRP. Furie recommends removing 

statements characterizing Hilcorp’s 

intent not to operate at the Tyonek 

Platform. 

Response: NMFS’ reference to Hilcorp 

not intending to conduct work with the 

Enterprise 151 at the Tyonek platform in 

2024 or 2025 was in error. NMFS thanks 

Furie for further clarifying this matter. 

Of note, while the notice of proposed 

IHA mistakenly included this outdated 

statement, NMFS did consider the 

potential for Hilcorp to operate the 

Enterprise 151 at the Tyonek platform in 

its analysis, including as it relates to 

required mitigation, and the analysis 

included in the IHA remains 

appropriate and incorporates the 

farthest distance that Furie may tow the 

tug (originating from the Rig Tenders 

Dock). 

Comment 3: Furie stated that the 

notice of the proposed IHA (89 FR 

51102, June 14, 2024) describes Furie’s 

planned activities as taking place in 

‘‘. . . an otherwise nonindustrial setting 

for a period of several days.’’ Oil and gas 

platforms have operated in this area of 

Cook Inlet for 60 years with daily 

activity. Similarly, Furie will tow the 

jack-up rig in shipping lanes that are 

transited nearly every day, often several 

times per day, by commercial ships, 

offshore supply vessels, and tugs and 

barges. Thus Furie states it is incorrect 

to characterize the project area as a 

‘‘non-industrial setting.’’ 

Response: The full statement in the 

notice of the proposed IHA (89 FR 

51102, June 14, 2024) that Furie is 

referencing states, ‘‘essentially, the 

project area will become a concentrated 

work area in an otherwise nonindustrial setting for a period of several 

days.’’ NMFS recognizes that industrial 

activities, such as construction and 

operation of oil and gas platforms as 

well as vessel transit, as highlighted by 

Furie, occur in middle Cook Inlet and 

include overlap with the area that Furie 

will operate. NMFS did not intend for 

its statement to imply that no industrial 

activity occurs in the project area, but 

instead to highlight that the project will 

cause a concentrated increase in a 

specific area in comparison to the 

baseline in that same area, as this 

relative comparison can inform how 

marine mammals may or may not 

respond to an applicant’s activities. 

Comment 4: Furie stated that it plans 

to install the conductors inside the 

caisson monopod leg of the JRP 

platform. Therefore, no area of the 

seafloor will be impacted by pile driving 

and will not cause a decrease in water 

quality as NMFS stated in the notice of 

the proposed IHA (89 FR 51102, June 

14, 2024). Furie recommended alternate 

language in its letter. 

Response: NMFS concurs that the 

reference to decreased water quality and 

seafloor habitat impacts is in error given 

that the pile driving will occur within 

the caisson monopod leg of the JRP 

platform. The referenced language is not 

included in this notice of final IHA. 

Comment 5: Furie stated in its letter 

that its application mistakenly proposed 

a proxy source level of 184 decibels (dB) 

sound exposure level (SEL) for 

installation of 20-in conductor piles in 

Sections 1.1.2.1, 6.2.3, and 6.3.3, while 

the user spreadsheet in Appendix A of 

its application used 181 dB SEL for the 

same activity. Furie intended to propose 

use of 181 dB SEL. In the proposed IHA 

(89 FR 51102, June 14, 2024), NMFS 

estimated the Level A harassment zones 

using 184 dB SEL. Furie stated that 

Navy (2015) lists the 184 dB SEL as 

applicable to 24-inch (in), 30-in, and 36- 

in piles collectively, but lists 181 dB 

SEL as specifically applicable to 24-in 

piles. 

Given that the source level applies to 

piles ranging from 24-in to 36-in, Furie 

suggested that NMFS retain the Level A 

harassment zones presented in table 8 of 

the corrected notice (89 FR 53961; June 

28, 2024) and the resulting estimate of 

take by Level A harassment as valid 

analyses for installation of conductor 

piles up to 36-in. That way, NMFS’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77838 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

analysis would encompass all conductor 

sizes available to Furie, should it choose 

to use larger conductors in our wells. 

Furie noted that this would not affect 

the Level B harassment zones which are 

calculated using a different sound 

source level. 

Response: NMFS concurs with Furie 

that it is appropriate to use 184 dB SEL 

as a proxy source level for calculating 

Level A harassment zones for 

installation of piles that range in size 

from 20 to 36 in diameters. NMFS has 

retained the analysis for installation of 

conductor piles (using sound source 

levels of 184 dB SEL and 193 dB sound 

pressure level root mean square (SPLrms) 

at 10 m) as included in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (89 FR 51102, June 14, 

2024) but recognizes that the conductor 

piles that Furie installs may have a 

diameter of up to 36 in rather than 20 

in. NMFS further concurs that this does 

not affect the calculated Level B 

harassment zones, as those are 

calculated using 193 dB SPLrms at 10 m. 

Comment 6: Furie stated that the 

notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 51102, 

June 14, 2024) states, ‘‘Site-specific TL 

(transmission loss) data for pile driving 

at the JRP site are not available’’ but 

that this is not entirely accurate. Furie 

contracted with JASCO Applied 

Sciences during the 2015 installation of 

the JRP to conduct a sound source 

verification (SSV) to evaluate the impact 

installation of the 42-in pin piles that 

hold the JRP in place (cited as Austin et 

al. 2015 in Section 6.2.3 of Furie’s 

application). The calculated 

transmission loss coefficient was 20.3 

Because the hammer is rated at four 

times the energy of the one planned for 

use at the JRP and because it was for the 

installation of 42- in piles, Furie did not 

view it as a suitable proxy for the sound 

source levels (SSL) for the installation of 

the conductor pipes inside the monopod 

leg of the platform. Furie stated that it 

acknowledges that many factors affect 

transmission loss, including the 

frequencies of the predominant sound 

energy emanating from the piles as they 

are impacted, which may vary with pile 

size and impact energy. However, the 

other factors affecting transmission loss, 

such as bathymetry, depth, salinity, and 

temperature, are ‘‘site-specific’’ and are 

relevant to Furie’s planned installation 

of conductors. Furie states that the use 

of a 15 dB per decade transmission loss 

likely overestimates the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

isopleths and the degree of incidental 

take. 

Response: As stated in the notice of 

the proposed IHA (89 FR 51102, June 

14, 2024), absent site-specific acoustical 

monitoring with differing measured TL, 

a practical spreading value of 15 is used 

as the TL coefficient in the above 

formula. NMFS concurs that the 

sentence in the notice that states that 

‘‘TL data for pile driving at the JRP site 

are not available’’ could have been 

worded in a way that is more accurate 

to acknowledge that SSV has been 

conducted at the project site for a 

different size pile than that which Furie 

plans to install. NMFS has updated this 

statement to state ‘‘Site-specific TL data 

for pile driving with relevant parallel 

characteristics are not available.’’ This 

wording change does not affect NMFS’ 

analysis, as NMFS still finds that the 

default transmission loss coefficient of 

15 is appropriate. 

Comment 7: Furie stated that in table 

13 of the notice of the proposed IHA (89 

FR 51102, June 14, 2024), NMFS 

identifies the ‘‘best’’ Cook Inlet beluga 

abundance estimate (Nbest) as 279. The 

estimated take as a percentage of this 

stock abundance is 3.9 percent. Furie 

states that the fourth footnote 

contradicts the table, describing the 

most recent abundance ranging from 

290 to 386, with a best estimate of 331 

animals, citing Goetz et al. (2023) as the 

source. The footnote also describes the 

authorized take as 3.3 percent of the 

stock rather than the 3.9 percent listed 

in the table. Furie believes that the 

estimate in Goetz et al. 2023 is the best 

available data and recommends a 

revision of the table to align with the 

information provided in the footnote. 

Response: As noted by Furie, Goetz et 

al. (2023) provides the most recent Cook 

Inlet beluga whale abundance estimate. 

Footnotes 9 and 4 in tables 3 and 13, 

respectively, of the notice of the 

proposed IHA (and table 1 and table 11 

in this notice) also state that ‘‘in 

accordance with the MMPA, this 

population estimate will be 

incorporated into the Cook Inlet beluga 

whale SAR, which will be reviewed by 

an independent panel of experts, the 

Alaska Scientific Review Group. After 

this review, the SAR will be made 

available as a draft for public review 

before being finalized.’’ Even when 

more recent abundance estimates are 

available, NMFS typically considers 

abundance estimates from the SARs to 

be the best available given the rigorous 

SAR review process. However, in this 

case, regardless of whether the number 

of instances of takes is compared to the 

abundance estimate in the current Cook 

Inlet beluga whale SAR or the Goetz et 

al. (2023) abundance estimate, the 

number of instances of take as a percent 

of the stock abundance is less than 4 

percent and is considered to be of small 

numbers. 

Comment 8: FoA states that the 

proposed IHAs would allow for the take 

of 11 beluga whales, or 3 percent, of the 

Cook Inlet population per year for a 

total of up to two consecutive years. 

Therefore, Furie is proposing to take at 

least 22 or 6 percent of beluga whales 

if NMFS approves the IHAs. FOA cites 

the Cook Inlet beluga whale 2018 SAR 

that states ‘‘even one take every two 

years may still impede recovery.’’ FoA 

states that the estimated number of takes 

is indefinite, and based on the vast 

amount of harmful impacts it says 

Furie’s proposed project would add to 

the existing anthropogenic activities 

within Cook Inlet, the actual number of 

takes is likely to be higher. 

Response: The commenter appears to 

be misinterpreting the discussion of take 

in the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR. The 

statement in the 2018 SAR that the 

commenter quoted is referencing take by 

mortality. The Furie IHAs do not 

authorize take by serious injury or 

mortality, and for all species other than 

harbor seals (for which take by Level A 

harassment is authorized), authorized 

take is by Level B harassment only. As 

described further in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis and Determination 

section, the authorized takes are not 

expected to have more than a negligible 

impact on all marine mammal stocks. 

As described in further detail in that 

section, the area of exposure would be 

limited to habitat primarily used for 

transiting and not areas known to be of 

particular importance for feeding or 

reproduction, the activities are not 

expected to result in Cook Inlet beluga 

whales abandoning critical habitat nor 

are they expected to restrict passage of 

Cook Inlet beluga whales within or 

between critical habitat areas, and any 

disturbance to Cook Inlet beluga whales 

is expected to be limited to temporary 

modifications in behavior, and would 

not be of a duration or intensity 

expected to result in impacts on 

reproduction or survival. 

The commenter does not provide 

support for its assertion that the 

estimated number of takes is indefinite, 

and these IHAs are each effective for 

one year. The commenter also does not 

provide support for its assertion that the 

actual number of takes is likely to be 

higher than the estimated number 

included in the proposed IHA (89 FR 

51102, June 14, 2024) and authorized in 

this final IHA. 

Comment 9: FoA stated that despite 

this critical time for monitoring 

population trends, NMFS has delayed 

aerial surveying of the species from June 

2024 until June 2025, due to less 

aggregation of the whales in places they 

previously and regularly have been 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77839 

observed (NMFS 2024). Authorization of 

further take of the species without 

performing consistent surveying 

methods is especially concerning since 

the resident population is known for 

behavioral congregation patterns, such 

as for feeding and reproduction (NMFS 

2021). 

Response: The MMPA requires NMFS 

to make its findings based upon the best 

available science, regardless of whether 

any particular survey is continued or 

not. However, to clarify, and as 

described in a recent article (NMFS 

2024c), since 2010, NOAA Fisheries 

scientists have been conducting a 

biennial aerial survey in early-to-mid 

June to estimate the abundance and 

trends of Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Beluga whales gather in the upper inlet 

in June to feed on returning fish runs. 

The biennial aerial survey involved 

flying a coastal trackline of all nearshore 

waters in Cook Inlet and a series of 

offshore transects across the inlet. When 

they encountered a beluga group, the 

plane made multiple passes alongside 

the group so observers could count the 

whales present and collect videos. 

Scientists used these observation data to 

estimate group sizes. The surveys were 

designed to take advantage of the 

clumped distribution of these whales in 

early June, when they are often found in 

a small number (two to eight) of large 

groups. However, in recent years, 

whales have not been as aggregated in 

places that researchers used to regularly 

see them, such as the Susitna Delta. 

To identify the best and most costeffective approach for estimating 

abundance and trends, in 2021 and 2022 

scientists added line-transect aerial 

surveys within Susitna Delta, 

Chickaloon Bay, and Trading Bay. They 

also conducted the conventional aerial 

survey for comparative purposes. 

Scientists found that the sightings data 

from the line-transect survey approach 

produced a reliable abundance estimate 

similar to the conventional method. The 

method also does not require months of 

video analysis, instead producing an 

estimate shortly after the completion of 

field work. 

As to the reason for pushing the 2024 

survey to 2025, in 2024, researchers had 

hoped to replace the conventional aerial 

survey method with a line-transect 

aerial survey conducted in combination 

with a Cook Inlet beluga photoidentification project. This project 

obtains overhead photos taken from an 

uncrewed aerial system (UAS). 

However, the plane chartered for survey 

operations had mechanical issues and 

the team was unable to secure an 

alternative. Therefore, the team plans to 

conduct the survey next year. 

Researchers expect to be able to 

obtain an abundance estimate from the 

photo-identification project, which uses 

UAS technology, in 2024. They have 

been using UAS since 2017, and the 

count information collected using this 

technology has allowed NMFS to 

produce a comparable abundance 

estimate to other approaches. However, 

the crewed aerial survey can provide 

distribution information, as it covers the 

entire Inlet’s coastline and offshore 

waters, areas where UAS/photo 

identification studies do not currently 

occur. Currently UAS use has been 

limited to areas in the upper inlet such 

as the Susitna Delta, Knik Arm, 

Chickaloon Bay, and Trading Bay. 

Further, UAS is limited in that it has to 

operate within line of sight of the 

person operating the drone. It is also 

limited by weather and tides. Tides 

restrict access to these areas for boats 

used to deploy the drones. 

It is unclear what the commenter 

means in stating that authorization of 

further take of the species without 

performing consistent surveying 

methods is especially concerning since 

the resident population is known for 

behavioral congregation patterns, such 

as for feeding and reproduction. 

However, as described above, the 

planned changes to survey methods are 

based on a determination that the newly 

planned method is the best and most 

cost-effective approach for estimating 

abundance and trends. 

Comment 10: FOA urges NMFS to 

deny issuance of IHAs to Furie, as well 

as any renewal IHAs, and to cease 

issuing IHAs that include take of Cook 

Inlet beluga whales until they are on a 

successful path to recovery. FoA further 

urges NMFS to cease issuing IHAs that 

include take of Cook Inlet beluga whales 

and marine mammals altogether until 

threats of high concern to Cook Inlet 

marine mammals can be better 

understood and addressed through 

continued research and action 

initiatives. FoA states that continuous 

granting of incidental take permits and 

IHAs for anthropogenic activities by 

Federal agencies diminishes the 

recovery and survivability of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales and is inconsistent with 

the purposes of the MMPA. 

Response: The MMPA requires that 

NMFS issue an ITA for a specified 

activity, provided the necessary findings 

are made and appropriate mitigation 

and monitoring measures are set forth, 

as described in the Background section 

of this notice. Please refer to that section 

for additional information. Such 

findings have been made, and therefore, 

NMFS has issued two consecutive IHAs 

to Furie. 

Consistent with the MMPA, NMFS 

has included measures to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species and their 

habitat, and has also included 

appropriate monitoring and reporting 

requirements. For example, during 

tugging and pile driving, Furie must 

conduct pre-clearance monitoring prior 

to commencing activities and must 

delay the start of activities if marine 

mammals are within designated preclearance zones. Furie must implement 

soft start techniques and shut down 

activities if an animal enters a 

designated shutdown zone for pile 

driving activities, and it must conduct 

tugging activities with a favorable tide 

to reduce noise output. Please see the 

Mitigation section of this notice for a 

full description of the required 

mitigation measures. 

Further, monitoring results from 

previous similar tugging and 

construction activities have not 

recorded responses from Cook Inlet 

beluga whales that indicate impacts that 

would affect the survival or recovery of 

Cook Inlet beluga whales. Hilcorp’s 

most recent annual marine mammal 

monitoring report indicates that it did 

not record any sightings of beluga 

whales from their rig-based monitoring 

efforts (Horsley and Larson, 2023), and 

the most recent monthly monitoring 

report that describes monitoring results 

from the May 2024 rig transiting also 

indicates no recorded sightings of 

beluga whales during transit (Weston 

Solutions, 2024). Further, monitoring 

data from construction at the Port of 

Alaska (POA) demonstrates Level B 

harassment of Cook Inlet beluga whales 

typically manifests as increased swim 

speeds past the POA, tighter group 

formations, and cessation of 

vocalizations, none of which would be 

expected to impact survival or recovery 

of Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Comment 11: FoA stated that the 

potential impacts from Level B 

harassment that Furie’s proposed 

project will have on the species are 

varied and numerous. They assert this 

includes hearing impairment, separation 

of family groups, loss of prey and/or 

habitat, disturbances to biologically 

sensitive feeding and mating areas, 

bodily harm, behavioral changes, and 

synergistic and/or cumulative effects, 

among others. For these reasons, FoA 

states the numerous negative effects on 

marine mammals do not constitute 

negligible impacts, and therefore, Furie 

does not meet the qualifications for 

obtaining an IHA under the MMPA. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

FoA’s claim that the effects of Furie’s 

activities on marine mammals do not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77840 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

constitute negligible impact. In the 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination section of the notice of 

the proposed IHAs (89 FR 51102, June 

14, 2024) and this notice, we describe 

how the take estimated and authorized 

for Furie’s project will have a negligible 

impact on all of the affected species, 

including Cook Inlet beluga whales. We 

discuss how this determination is based 

upon the authorized number of takes of 

each stock that might be exposed briefly 

during the activity, the low level of 

behavioral harassment (and for harbor 

seals, small degree of permanent 

threshold shift (PTS)) that might result 

from an instance of take that could 

occur within a year, and the likelihood 

that the mitigation measures required 

further lessen the likelihood or severity 

of exposures. NMFS has considered the 

status of each stock in its analysis, as 

well as the importance of reducing 

impacts from anthropogenic noise, and 

there is no evidence that brief exposure 

to low level noise causing Level B 

harassment (and for harbor seals, PTS) 

would have the impacts asserted by the 

commenter. 

NMFS’ negligible impact finding 

considers a number of parameters 

including, but not limited to, the nature 

of the activities (e.g., duration, sound 

source), effects/intensity of the taking, 

the context of takes, and mitigation. 

NMFS understands that marine 

mammals will have varying responses to 

elevated noise levels resulting from pile 

driving and tugging activities such as 

masking of communication and foraging 

signals, avoidance behaviors, and more. 

However, NMFS does not anticipate that 

these responses will result in separation 

of family groups, nor has the commenter 

provided information supporting that 

assertion. 

No serious injury or mortality (i.e., 

bodily harm, as referred to by the 

commenter) is anticipated or 

authorized. While exposure to elevated 

noise levels associated with Furie’s 

activities may result in low-level 

behavioral changes in marine mammals 

(and for harbor seals, a small degree of 

PTS (i.e., hearing impairment, as 

referred to by the commenter) for a 

maximum of three animals per year), 

NMFS’ review of the best available 

scientific evidence, as summarized and 

cited herein, demonstrates that these 

responses do not rise to the level of 

having adverse effects on the fitness of 

individuals for reproduction or survival, 

and thus would not affect reproduction 

or survival rates of any stock, and the 

commenter has provided no evidence to 

the contrary. Further, while Furie’s 

project area does overlap ESAdesignated critical habitat for Cook Inlet 

beluga whale, the impacts from the 

project are not expected to occur in 

areas that are important for feeding or 

reproduction for any species, including 

Cook Inlet beluga whales, nor are they 

anticipated to result in a loss of prey or 

habitat. Monitoring data from Hilcorp’s 

activities suggest that tugging activities 

do not discourage Cook Inlet beluga 

whales from transiting throughout Cook 

Inlet and between critical habitat areas 

and that the whales do not abandon 

critical habitat areas (Horsley and 

Larson, 2023). In addition, large 

numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales 

have continued to use Cook Inlet and 

pass through the area, likely traveling to 

critical foraging grounds found in upper 

Cook Inlet (i.e., outside of the project 

area), while noise-producing 

anthropogenic activities, including 

vessel use, have taken place during the 

past two decades (e.g., Shelden et al. 

2013, 2015, 2017, 2022; Shelden and 

Wade 2019; Geotz et al. 2023). 

Therefore, NMFS has appropriately 

concluded that the taking from year 1 

and year 2 activities each will have a 

negligible impact on the affected stocks, 

and accordingly has issued two 

consecutive IHAs to Furie. 

Please see NMFS’ response to 

Comment 13 regarding cumulative 

effects. 

Comment 12: FoA stated that after the 

finalization of the Recovery Plan in 

December 2016 (NMFS 2016a) and a 

Species in the Spotlight 2021–2025 

Priority Action Plan for the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale (NMFS 2021) in place, 

NMFS should emphasize greater 

measures to enhance the survival of the 

species and address a needed reduction 

of anthropogenic activities within Cook 

Inlet. Doing so will support recovery 

efforts while eliminating long-term 

harassment and further endangerment to 

the species. 

Response: NMFS has prescribed 

mitigation measures in the IHAs to 

effect the least practicable adverse 

impact on Cook Inlet beluga whales and 

all other affected marine mammal 

species. Of note, these IHAs extend the 

pre-clearance zone for Cook Inlet beluga 

whales ahead of tugging activities to 

include the extent to which protected 

species observers (PSOs) can feasibly 

observe, rather than a zone of 1,500 

meters (m) included in previous IHAs 

for similar activities (87 FR 62364, 

October 14, 2022). 

We note that NMFS’ authority under 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 

pertains only to the authorization of 

marine mammal take incidental to that 

activity and to the prescription of 

appropriate mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements. Therefore, 

while NMFS cannot reduce 

anthropogenic activities within Cook 

Inlet, we will continue to consider the 

vulnerable status of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales in our negligible impact analyses 

and require that any activity for which 

we issue an ITA will meet that standard; 

and we will prescribe appropriate 

measures under the least practicable 

adverse impact standard. 

Comment 13: FOA stated that NMFS 

should consider the potential 

cumulative impact from past, current, 

and future activities and their impact on 

the environmental baseline when 

determining whether ‘‘take is 

negligible’’ (which we interpret as a 

reference to the negligible impact 

standard). FoA quoted the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale recovery plan (NMFS 

2016a), which states ‘‘applications for 

IHAs have historically been reviewed on 

the basis of an individual activity in 

isolation. But the high level of human 

activity in Cook Inlet has increased such 

that cumulative effects of multiple 

activities must be appropriately 

accounted for.’’ FoA further stated that 

there are already a prominent number of 

authorizations throughout Cook Inlet 

allowing for the take of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales, stating that between 

2017 and 2025, NMFS is projected to 

authorize approximately 120,000 

incidental takes of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales (Migura and Bollini 2022). 

Response: We note first that the 

Migura and Bollini (2022) paper cited 

by FoA, regarding the projected 

authorized take of Cook Inlet beluga 

whale through 2025, seems to have led 

to a misunderstanding of the takes 

authorized or permitted by NMFS. The 

vast majority of the asserted ∼120,000 

total takes (over 99 percent), including 

all of the very small amount of take by 

Level A harassment, were authorized 

under directed research or enhancement 

permits, which directly support 

research or actions identified in the 

Recovery Plan to address Cook Inlet 

beluga whale recovery goals. Further, 

the vast majority (∼99 percent) of the 

total permitted research or enhancement 

take numbers are low-level MMPA 

Level B harassment from remote or noninvasive procedures that were 

considered ‘‘not likely to adversely 

affect’’ listed species under the 

consultation requirements of section 7 

of the ESA (i.e., take under the ESA is 

neither expected to occur nor exempted 

for those activities). We refer the 

commenter to NMFS’ Cook Inlet beluga 

whale 5-year review (NMFS 2022; 

section 2.3.2), in which NMFS 

addressed the assertions in Migura and 

Bollini (2022). Last, it is worth noting 

that for research activities, authorized 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77841 

takes are typically a larger number than 

the actual takes that occur. For example, 

22,090 takes were authorized for Cook 

Inlet beluga research occurring in 2019 

but only 2,405 takes occurred. 

Regarding the comprehensive 

evaluation and minimization of 

permitted takes, we reference the 

analysis that has already been 

completed through NMFS’ 2019 

Biological and Conference Opinion on 

the Proposed Implementation of a 

Program for the Issuance of Permits for 

Research and Enhancement Activities 

on Cetaceans in the Arctic, Atlantic, 

Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans 

(NMFS 2019), which determined that 

the research and enhancement takes 

permitted by the program would not 

jeopardize the existence of any of the 

affected species. As part of our 

programmatic framework for permitting 

directed take of ESA species, the 

Permits and Conservation Division will 

continue to closely evaluate the number 

and manner of Cook Inlet beluga whale 

takes requested by each applicant, how 

the proposed research ties to recovery 

plan goals, and the collective number of 

authorized and requested takes to 

consider the potential cumulative 

impact of the activities to the 

population. Each directed take annual 

report is reviewed to understand how 

authorized takes were actually used and 

to closely monitor the impacts that 

permitted research methods are having 

on the target animals. 

Regarding the comment about the 

negligible impact determination for this 

action, neither the MMPA nor NMFS’ 

implementing regulations call for 

consideration of the take resulting from 

other activities in the negligible impact 

analysis. The preamble for NMFS’ 

implementing regulations (54 FR 40338, 

September 29, 1989) states, in response 

to comments, that the impacts from 

other past and ongoing anthropogenic 

activities are to be incorporated into the 

negligible impact analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline. Consistent with 

that direction, NMFS has factored into 

its negligible impact analysis the 

impacts of other past and ongoing 

anthropogenic activities via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the density/distribution and 

status of the species, population size 

and growth rate, and other relevant 

stressors (such as incidental mortality in 

commercial fisheries, Unusual Mortality 

Events (UMEs), and subsistence 

hunting)); see the Negligible Impact 

Analyses and Determinations section of 

this notice of issuance. The 1989 final 

rule for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations also addressed public 

comments regarding cumulative effects 

from future, unrelated activities. There, 

NMFS stated that such effects are not 

considered in making findings under 

section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible 

impact. In this case, the two IHAs 

issued to Furie are appropriately 

considered an unrelated activity relative 

to other ITAs currently in effect or 

proposed within the specified 

geographic region. The ITAs are 

unrelated in the sense that they are 

discrete actions under section 

101(a)(5)(D) issued to discrete 

applicants (with the exception of the 

two consecutive IHAs issued to Furie). 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

requires NMFS to make a determination 

that the take incidental to a ‘‘specified 

activity’’ will have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks of 

marine mammals and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for subsistence uses. NMFS’ 

implementing regulations require 

applicants to include in their request a 

detailed description of the specified 

activity or class of activities that can be 

expected to result in incidental taking of 

marine mammals (see 50 CFR 

216.104(a)(1)). Thus, the ‘‘specified 

activity’’ for which incidental take 

coverage is being sought under section 

101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and 

described by the applicant. Here, Furie 

was the applicant for the IHAs, and we 

are responding to the specified activities 

as described in that application (and 

making the necessary findings on that 

basis). The take estimates NMFS 

authorizes represent the upper limits for 

individuals and some instances of take 

may represent multiple exposures to a 

single individual. 

NMFS’ response to public comments 

in the 1989 implementing regulations 

also indicated (1) that we would 

consider cumulative effects that are 

reasonably foreseeable when preparing a 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis, and (2) that reasonably 

foreseeable cumulative effects would 

also be considered under section 7 of 

the ESA for ESA-listed species, as 

appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS has 

prepared an EA that addressed 

cumulative impacts of Furie’s activities 

and all past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Additionally, 

the NMFS Alaska Regional Office 

(AKRO) issued a Biological Opinion on 

September 11, 2024, under section 7 of 

the ESA, on the issuance of two IHAs to 

Furie under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA by NMFS OPR that 

independently considered the 

reasonably foreseeable cumulative 

effects of activities on ESA-listed 

species. 

Comment 14: FoA states that it 

supports the creation of annual 

programmatic EAs, an annual 

permitting cycle, and the overall 

analysis of cumulative effects from 

multiple IHAs. FoA further urges NMFS 

to complete its development of an 

analysis on the cumulative effects of 

anthropogenic activities and threats of 

high concern to enhance the recovery 

efforts for Cook Inlet beluga whales. In 

a related comment, FOA stated that to 

prevent further decline of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales, NMFS should not stray 

from conducting a more comprehensive 

assessment of the cumulative impacts 

related to noise, habitat degradation, 

chemical exposure, mortality, stranding, 

climate change, and migration of the 

species and its prey. FoA states that 

synergistic effects of toxic chemical 

exposure and noise are particularly 

concerning in coastal areas where 

pollutants are concentrated, and in areas 

heavy with potential spillage, engine 

leaks, and consistent vessel traffic. 

Response: Although not explicit, the 

commenter may be referring to a 2015 

notice of intent to prepare a 

programmatic EA (80 FR 48299; August 

12, 2015) and a 2014 notice of intent to 

prepare an EIS (79 FR 61616, October 

14, 2014). In the 2015 notice, NMFS 

announced its intent to (1) prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to analyze the 

environmental impacts of issuing 

annual Incidental Take Authorizations 

(ITAs) pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) for the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to 

anthropogenic activities in the waters of 

Cook Inlet, AK, for the 2016 season and; 

(2) its intent to institute an MMPA 

authorization cycle wherein companies 

planning to submit MMPA incidental 

harassment authorization applications 

for work to be conducted in Cook Inlet 

in 2016 do so by no later than October 

1, 2015. 

In the 2014 notice, NMFS declared its 

intent to prepare an EIS for oil and gasrelated incidental take authorizations in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska (79 FR 61616, 

October 14, 2014). However, in a 2017 

Federal Register notice (82 FR 41939, 

September 5, 2017), NMFS indicated 

that due to a reduced number of ITA 

requests in the region, combined with 

funding constraints at that time, we 

were postponing any potential 

preparation of an EIS for oil and gas 

activities in Cook Inlet. As we stated in 

the 2017 Federal Register notice, should 

the number of ITA requests, or 

anticipated requests, noticeably 

increase, NMFS will re-evaluate 

whether preparation of an EIS is 

necessary. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77842 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

Currently, the number of ITA requests 

for activities that may affect marine 

mammals in Cook Inlet is at such a level 

that preparation of an EIS is not yet 

necessary, nor are annual EAs as 

proposed in 2015 (80 FR 48299; August 

12, 2015). Nonetheless, under NEPA, 

NMFS is required to consider 

cumulative effects of other potential 

activities in the same geographic area as 

the proposed action, and these are 

discussed in greater detail in NMFS’ 

Final EA prepared for this issuance of 

two consecutive IHAs to Furie for 

natural gas activities, which supports 

our finding that NMFS’ issuance of the 

IHAs will not have a significant impact 

on the human environment. 

Regarding the threats of high concern 

identified by FoA (noise, habitat 

degradation, chemical exposure, 

mortality, stranding, climate change, 

and migration of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales and their prey), NMFS 

addressed these threats, as appropriate, 

in the Final EA. Noise from both the 

project and other nearby activities is 

addressed throughout the Final EA. The 

Cumulative Effects section of the Final 

EA (Section 4.8) addresses subsistence 

hunting, pollution, fisheries interaction, 

vessel traffic, coastal zone development, 

oil and gas development, mining, 

marine mammal research, and climate 

change impacts, all of which contribute 

or could potentially contribute (e.g., 

subsistence hunting of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales, which is not known to currently 

occur in Cook Inlet) to the threats 

identified by FoA. Specifically related 

to pollutants, as noted in the Final EA, 

a recent study of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales, the species most at risk in the 

action area, suggests a potential link 

between gastrointestinal cancer in 

belugas to environmental PAH 

contamination (Poirier et al, 2019). 

There is also preliminary evidence of 

female marine mammals passing 

contaminant loads to offspring (Peterson 

et al, 2018; Andvik et al, 2021) as well 

as a relationship between contaminant 

exposure and congenital abnormalities 

(Burek-Huntington et al. 2022). 

However, the effects of transfer of 

contaminant loads to offspring 

repeatedly across generations is unclear, 

and additional research on the causes of 

congenital abnormalities in Cook Inlet 

beluga whales (including effects of 

contaminant exposure, genetic diversity, 

and nutrition) is needed. Of note, while 

the Recovery Plan for the Cook Inlet 

Beluga Whale identifies pollution as a 

threat, it notes that available 

information indicates that the 

magnitude of the pollution threat to 

Cook Inlet beluga whales appears low, 

though not all pollutants to which Cook 

Inlet beluga whales are exposed have 

been studied in that environment. 

While consideration of the activities 

discussed above in sum suggests an 

increase in industrialization of Cook 

Inlet, many of these activities are 

spatially and temporally limited and do 

not permanently reduce or degrade the 

habitat available to marine mammals or 

their prey species. Cook Inlet is also a 

geographically vast area, and many 

activities, including the activities 

planned by Furie and other noiseproducing activities, are geographically 

distinct to various portions of the inlet, 

which prevents the continued or 

permanent disruption of one particular 

portion of the inlet for extended 

durations, therefore providing other 

areas of available habitat. 

It is unclear what the commenter is 

referring to in terms of addressing 

migration of Cook Inlet beluga whales 

and their prey as a threat. However, as 

noted in response to Comment 9, in 

recent years, Cook Inlet beluga whales 

have not been as aggregated in places 

that researchers used to regularly see 

them, such as the Susitna Delta. 

Comment 15: FoA stated that NMFS 

should extend its public comment 

period to at least one month to obtain 

adequate public findings before the 

issuance of consecutive IHAs. 

Response: Publication of the notice of 

proposed IHAs (89 FR 51102, June 14, 

2024) began a 30-day public comment 

period that served as the statutorilyrequired comment period for each of the 

proposed IHAs. FoA did not provide 

reasoning for why this initial comment 

period was insufficient. As such, and 

given that Furie’s planned project 

schedule did not allow for extension of 

the comment period, NMFS has not 

extended the public comment period for 

the proposed IHAs. 

Comment 16: USGS provided a recent 

paper that its researchers co-authored 

(Himes Boor et al. 2022) that found that 

Cook Inlet beluga whale population 

declines are likely due to both low 

survival rates and low birth rates. 

Response: NMFS thanks USGS for 

providing this paper for NMFS’ 

consideration. As described in the 

paper, the results of this study can assist 

researchers and managers in identifying 

the most significant factors contributing 

to the decline of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales, and we have incorporated 

consideration of this paper into our 

analysis of the potential impacts of 

Furie’s activities on Cook Inlet beluga 

whales in the EA. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

In the final IHAs, NMFS updated the 

measure that describes the clearance 

zones required for tugging activities 

during daylight hours (measure 4(d) in 

the IHAs). The updated language does 

not change the intent of the measure, 

but rather, is intended to clarify that if 

a beluga whale is observed within the 

relevant clearance zone during those 30 

minutes, operations may not commence 

until the beluga whale(s) is no longer 

detected at any range and 30 minutes 

have elapsed without any observations 

of beluga whales. The measure in the 

proposed IHA could have potentially 

been interpreted to imply that activities 

could commence after 30 minutes even 

if a beluga whale was still detected by 

PSOs. NMFS also amended measure 

5(b) of the IHAs to state that in addition 

to the two PSOs that must be stationed 

on the tug or jack-up rig for monitoring 

purposes for the entirety of the jack-up 

rig towing and positioning operations, 

an additional PSO must be stationed on 

the JRP platform. Last, NMFS added a 

footnote to Table 2 of the IHAs to clarify 

that the shutdown zone for Cook Inlet 

beluga whales during conductor pipe 

pile driving is different from other midfrequency cetaceans. The footnote states 

‘‘If Cook Inlet beluga whales are 

observed within or approaching the 

Level B harassment zone for conductor 

pipe installation, impact installation of 

the conductor pipe must be delayed or 

halted until the beluga(s) have 

voluntarily left and been visually 

confirmed to be 100 m beyond the Level 

B harassment zone and on a trajectory 

away from the zone, or 30 minutes have 

passed without subsequent detections.’’ 

This requirement was included in the 

notice of the proposed IHAs (89 FR 

51102, June 14, 2024). 

Further, in response to Furie’s 

comments, NMFS has changed 

references to ‘‘oil and gas activities’’ to 

‘‘natural gas activities’’ throughout, 

clarified that Hilcorp does intend to 

operate at Tyonek platform, and 

clarified that site-specific TL data for 

pile driving with relevant parallel 

characteristics are not available. Also in 

response to Furie’s comments, NMFS 

updated its analysis to note that Furie 

may install conductor piles ranging in 

size from 20-in to 36-in depending on 

availability. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77843 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Additional information on Cook Inlet 

beluga whales may be found in NMFS’ 

2016 Recovery Plan for the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale, available online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

resource/document/recovery-plan-cookinlet-beluga-whale-delphinapterusleucas, and NMFS’ 2023 report on the 

abundance and trend of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales in Cook Inlet in June 

2021 and June 2022, available online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

resource/document/abundance-andtrend-belugas-delphinapterus-leucascook-inlet-alaska-june-2021-and. 

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this activity and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. PBR is defined by 

the MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species or stocks and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. 2022 SARs. All values 

presented in table 1 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication 

(including from the draft 2023 SARs) 

and are available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments. 

TABLE 1—SPECIES 1 LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ......................... Eschrichtius robustus ................ Eastern N Pacific ...................... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 

2016).

801 131 

Family Balaenidae: 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Fin whale ............................ Balaenoptera physalus ............. Northeast Pacific ....................... E, D, Y UND 5 (UND, UND, 

2013).

UND 0.6 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae .......... Hawai’i ...................................... -, -, N 11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 

2020).

127 27.09 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae .......... Mexico-North Pacific ................. T, D, Y N/A6 (N/A, N/A, 2006) .... UND 0.57 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae .......... Western North Pacific ............... E, D, Y 1,084 7 (0.088, 1,007, 

2006).

3.4 5.82 

Minke whale ........................ Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... AK ............................................. -, -, N N/A8 (N/A, N/A, N/A) ...... UND 0 

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ............................. Eastern North Pacific Alaska 

Resident.

-, -, N 1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 2019) 19 1.3 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ............................. Eastern North Pacific Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands and 

Bering Sea Transient.

-, -, N 587 (N/A, 587, 2012) ...... 5.9 0.8 

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens .... N Pacific .................................... -, -, N 26,880 (N/A, N/A, 1990) UND 0 

Family Monodontidae (white 

whales): 

Beluga whale ...................... Delphinapterus leucas .............. Cook Inlet .................................. E, D, Y 279 9 (0.061, 267, 2018) 0.53 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Dall’s porpoise .................... Phocoenoides dalli .................... AK ............................................. -, -, N UND 10 (UND, UND, 

2015).

UND 37 

Harbor porpoise .................. Phocoena phocoena ................. Gulf of Alaska ........................... -, -, Y 31,046 (0.21, N/A, 1998) UND 72 

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

CA sea lion ......................... Zalophus californianus .............. U.S. ........................................... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >321 

Steller wea lion ................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Western ..................................... E, D, Y 49,837 11 (N/A, 49,837, 

2022).

299 267 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
77844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

TABLE 1—SPECIES 1 LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina ........................... Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait .......... -, -, N 28,411 (N/A, 26,907, 

2018).

807 107 

1 Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy 

(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)). 2ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be 

declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA 

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 3 NMFS marine mammal SARs online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. CV 

is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 5The best available abundance estimate for this stock is not considered representative of the entire stock as surveys were limited to a small portion of the stock’s 

range. Based upon this estimate and the Nmin, the PBR value is likely negatively biased for the entire stock. 6Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and, therefore, current estimates are considered unknown. 7The best estimates of abundance for the stock (1,084) and the portion of the stock migrating to summering areas in U.S. waters (127) were derived from a reanalysis of the 2004–2006 SPLASH data (Wade 2021). Although these data are more than fifteen years old, the estimates are still considered valid minimum population estimates. 8 Reliable population estimates are not available for this stock. Please see Friday et al. (2013) and Zerbini et al. (2006) for additional information on numbers of 

minke whales in Alaska. 9On June 15, 2023, NMFS released an updated abundance estimate for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales in Alaska (Goetz et al. 2023). Data collected during 

NOAA Fisheries’ 2022 aerial survey suggest that the whale population is stable or may be increasing slightly. Scientists estimated that the population size is between 

290 and 386, with a median best estimate of 331. In accordance with the MMPA, this population estimate will be incorporated into the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR, 

which will be reviewed by an independent panel of experts, the Alaska Scientific Review Group. After this review, the SAR will be made available as a draft for public 

review before being finalized. 10The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the 

stock’s range. 11 Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 

As indicated above, all 12 species 

(with 15 number managed stocks) in 

table 3 temporally and spatially cooccur with the activity to the degree that 

take could occur. In addition, the 

northern sea otter may be found in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska. However, northern sea 

otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and are not considered 

further in this document. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by Furie’s activities, 

including a brief introduction to the 

affected stock as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA (89 FR 51102; June 14, 2024). Since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS’ website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for 

generalized species accounts. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS (NMFS, 2018) 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................................. 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...................................... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & 

L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .............................................................................................................. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .......................................................................................... 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77845 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al. 2006; Kastelein et al. 

2009; Reichmuth et al. 2013). This 

division between phocid and otariid 

pinnipeds is now reflected in the 

updated hearing groups proposed in 

Southall et al. (2019). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

Furie’s activities have the potential to 

result in behavioral harassment of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

project area. The notice of proposed IHA 

(89 FR 51102; June 14, 2024) included 

a discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from rig tugging and 

pile driving on marine mammals and 

their habitat. That information and 

analysis is referenced in this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

please refer to the notice of proposed 

IHA (89 FR 51102; June 14, 2024). 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHAs, which 

will inform NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers,’’ the negligible impact 

determinations, and impacts on 

subsistence uses. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (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). 

Authorized take will primarily be by 

Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., pile driving and 

tug towing and positioning) may result 

in disruption of behavioral patterns of 

individual marine mammals. We note 

here that given the slow, predictable, 

and generally straight path of tug towing 

and positioning, the likelihood of a 

resulting disruption of marine mammal 

behavioral patterns that would qualify 

as harassment is considered relatively 

low; however, at the request of the 

applicant, we have quantified the 

potential take from this activity, 

analyzed the impacts, and authorized 

take. There is also some potential for 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

result to phocids because of species 

occurrence and because predicted 

auditory injury zones are larger than for 

mid-frequency and otariid species. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

low-frequency, mid-frequency, highfrequency, or otariid species. The 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of the taking to the extent 

practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take numbers are 

estimated. 

To determine whether Level B 

harassment is expected to result from 

acoustic exposure, NMFS considers 

both the received levels a marine 

mammal is expected to be exposed to as 

compared to the relevant NMFS Level B 

harassment thresholds, as well as 

contextual factors that can impact 

whether a marine mammal’s behavioral 

patterns are likely to be disrupted (e.g., 

bearing and distance, predictability of 

source movement, whether habituation 

in a noisier/busy area is likely); 

specifically, whether any contextual 

factors would be expected to reduce the 

likelihood of behavioral disturbance 

even when a marine mammal is exposed 

above the Level B harassment threshold. 

Where the take of marine mammals is 

considered likely or is requested by the 

applicant, generally speaking, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and (4) the 

number of days of activities. We note 

that while these factors can contribute 

to a basic calculation to provide an 

initial prediction of potential takes, 

additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

(e.g., Southall et al. 2007, 2021, Ellison 

et al. 2012). Based on what the available 

science indicates and the practical need 

to use a threshold based on a metric that 

is both predictable and measurable for 

most activities, NMFS typically uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to support the estimation 

of the onset of Level B harassment and 

to quantify likely Level B harassment. 

Acknowledging the consideration of 

contextual factors noted above, NMFS 

generally predicts that marine mammals 

are likely to be affected in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB re 1 mPa for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and 

above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these thresholds are expected to 

include any likely takes by temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) as, in most cases, 

the likelihood of TTS occurs at 

distances from the source smaller than 

those at which onset of Level B 

harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient 

degree can manifest as Level B 

harassment, as reduced hearing 

sensitivity and the potential reduced 

opportunities to detect important 

signals (conspecific communication, 

predators, prey) may result in 

disruptions in behavior patterns that 

would not otherwise occur. 

Furie’s planned activity includes the 

use of continuous (tugs towing rig) and 

impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, 

and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

of 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to 5 different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Furie’s planned activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive (tugs 

towing and positioning rig) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss (TL) coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional noise from the planned 

project. Marine mammals are expected 

to be affected via sound generated by 

the primary components of the project 

(i.e., pile driving and tug towing and 

positioning). The calculated distance to 

the farthest Level B harassment isopleth 

is approximately 4,483 m (2.8 miles 

(mi)). 

The project includes impact 

installation of up to two conductor pipe 

piles (ranging in potential size from 20- 

in to 36-in) in each year. The monopod 

leg of the JRP will encase the well slot, 

which will encase the conductor pipes; 

therefore, some attenuation is expected 

during conductor pipe pile installation. 

However, water-filled isolation casings 

(such as the well slot and caisson at the 

JRP) are expected to provide limited 

sound attenuation (Caltrans 2015). Due 

to the well slot’s reflective surfaces and 

the monopod leg’s caisson inside the 

JRP, some attenuation of the impact 

noise is expected before reaching the 

open water. However, lacking projectspecific empirical data for a 20-in to 36- 

in conductor installed within a well slot 

located within a monopod leg, the 

unaltered sound source levels (SSLs) 

from U.S. Navy (2015) are used to 

calculate Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment isopleths. 

For tug activities, as described in 87 

FR 27597 (May 9, 2022), Hilcorp 

conducted a literature review of 

available source level data for tugs 

under load in varying power output 

scenarios. Table 4 below provides 

values of measured source levels for 

tugs varying from 2,000 to 8,200 

horsepower. For the purposes of this 

table, berthing activities could include 

tugs either pushing or pulling a load. 

The SSLs appear correlated to speed 

and power output, with full power 

output and higher speeds generating 

more propeller cavitation and greater 

SSLs than lower power output and 

lower speeds. Additional tug source 

levels are available from the literature 

but they are not specific to tugs under 

load but rather measured values for tugs 

during activities such as transiting, 

docking, and anchor pulling. For a 

summary of these additional tug values, 

see table 7 in Hilcorp’s 2022 IHA 

application, available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-hilcorpalaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cookinlet-alaska-0. 

TABLE 4—LITERATURE VALUES OF MEASURED TUG SOURCE LEVELS

Vessel 

Vessel 

length 

(m) 

Speed 

(knots) Activity 

Source level 

@1 m 

(re: 1 μPa) 

Horsepower Reference 

Eagle ................................... 32 9.6 Towing barge ..................... 173 6,770 Bassett et al. 2012. 

Valor .................................... 30 8.4 Towing barge ..................... 168 2,400 

Lela Joy ............................... 24 4.9 Towing barge ..................... 172 2,000 

Pacific Eagle ....................... 28 8.2 Towing barge ..................... 165 2,000 

Shannon .............................. 30 9.3 Towing barge ..................... 171 2,000 

James T Quigg ................... 30 7.9 Towing barge ..................... 167 2,000 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77847 

TABLE 4—LITERATURE VALUES OF MEASURED TUG SOURCE LEVELS—Continued 

Vessel 

Vessel 

length 

(m) 

Speed 

(knots) Activity 

Source level 

@1 m 

(re: 1 μPa) 

Horsepower Reference 

Island Scout ........................ 30 5.8 Towing barge ..................... 174 4,800 

Chief .................................... 34 11.4 Towing barge ..................... 174 8,200 

Lauren Foss ........................ 45 N/A Berthing barge ................... 167 8,200 Austin et al. 2013. 

Seaspan Resolution ............ 30 N/A Berthing at half power ....... 180 6,000 Roberts Bank Terminal 2 

Technical Report 2014. 

Seaspan Resolution ............ 30 N/A Berthing at full power ......... 200 6,000 

The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 

Technical Report (2014), although not in 

Cook Inlet, includes repeated 

measurements of the same tug operating 

under different speeds and loads. This 

allows for a comparison of source levels 

from the same vessel at half power 

versus full power, which is an 

important distinction for Furie’s 

activities, as a small fraction of the total 

time spent by tugs under load will be at 

greater than 50 percent power. The 

Seaspan Resolution’s half-power 

berthing scenario has a sound source 

level of 180 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m. In 

addition, the Roberts Bank Report 

(2014) analyzed 650 tug transits under 

varying load and speed conditions and 

reported mean tug source levels of 179.3 

dB re 1 mPa at 1 m; the 25th percentile 

was 179.0 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m, and 5th 

percentile source levels were 184.9 dB 

re 1 mPa at 1 m. 

Based solely on the literature review, 

a source level of 180 dB for a single tug 

under load would be appropriate. 

However, Furie’s use of a three tug 

configuration would increase the 

literature source level to approximately 

185 dB at 1 m (Lawrence et al. 2022, as 

cited in Weston and SLR 2022). 

As described in the Detailed 

Description of the Specific Activity 

section of the notice of proposed IHA 

(89 FR 51102, June 14, 2024), based on 

in situ measurements of Hilcorp’s tug 

and a review of the available literature 

of tugs under load described above, 

NMFS finds that a source level of 185 

dB re 1 mPa is appropriate for Furie’s 3 

tug configuration for towing the rig. 

As described above in the Detailed 

Description of the Specific Activity 

section, Furie may need to use four tugs 

to position the rig at the JRP. The 

SPLRMS of 185 dB for three tugs at 50 

percent power implies each tug 

individually has a source level of 180.2 

dB SPLrms because the addition of 3 

equal-intensity sound signals adds 4.8 

dB to the sound level of a single source 

(Engineering Toolbox 2023). Each 

doubling of sound intensity adds 3 dB 

to the baseline (Engineering Toolbox 

2023), and 4 tugs represents two 

doublings of a single source. Therefore, 

adding 6 dB to the 180.2 dB baseline 

results in an expected SSL of 186.2 dB 

rms SPL for the use of 4 tugs. Source 

levels for each activity are presented in 

table 5. 

TABLE 5—SSLS FOR PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Sound source 

SSL 

SEL SPLRMS

3 tugs at 50 percent power ..................................................................... ........................................................ 185 dB at 1 m. 

4 tugs at 50 percent power ..................................................................... ........................................................ 186.2 dB at 1 m. 

Conductor pipe pile (20-in to 36-in, impact) ........................................... 184 dB at 10 m .............................. 193 dB at 10 m. 

Several factors will determine the 

duration that the tugboats are towing the 

Enterprise 151, including the origin and 

destination of the towing route (e.g., Rig 

Tenders Dock, the JRP, one of Hilcorp’s 

platforms) and the tidal conditions. The 

power output will be variable and 

influenced by the prevailing wind 

direction and velocity, the current 

velocity, and the tidal stage. To the 

extent feasible, transport will be timed 

with the tide to minimize towing 

duration and power output. 

TL is the decrease in acoustic 

intensity as an acoustic pressure wave 

propagates out from a source. TL 

parameters vary with frequency, 

temperature, sea conditions, current, 

source and receiver depth, water depth, 

water chemistry, and bottom 

composition and topography. The 

general formula for underwater 

TL is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

Absent site-specific acoustical 

monitoring with differing measured TL, 

a practical spreading value of 15 is used 

as the TL coefficient in the above 

formula. Site-specific TL data for pile 

driving with relevant parallel 

characteristics are not available; 

therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is 

used to determine the distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds for conductor 

pile driving. 

For its tugging activities, Hilcorp 

contracted SLR Consulting to model the 

extent of the 120-dB isopleth as well as 

the extent of the Level A harassment 

isopleth for their planned tugging using 

three tugs. Rather than applying 

practical spreading loss, SLR Consulting 

created a more detailed propagation loss 

model in an effort to improve the 

accuracy of the results by considering 

the influence of environmental variables 

(e.g., bathymetry) at Hilcorp’s specific 

well sites. Modeling was conducted 

using dBSea software. The fluid 

parabolic equation modeling algorithm 

was used with 5 Pade ́ terms (see page 

57 in Hilcorp’s application, available at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-hilcorpalaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cookinlet-alaska-0, for more detail) to 

calculate the TL between the source and 

the receiver at low frequencies (1⁄3- 

octave bands, 31.5 Hertz (Hz) up to 1 

kilohertz (kHz)). For higher frequencies 

(1 kHz up to 8 kHz) the ray tracing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

model was used with 1,000 reflections 

for each ray. Sound sources were 

assumed to be omnidirectional and 

modeled as points. The received sound 

levels for the project were calculated as 

follows: (1) One-third octave source 

spectral levels were obtained via 

reference spectral curves with 

subsequent corrections based on their 

corresponding overall source levels; (2) 

TL was modeled at one-third octave 

band central frequencies along 100 

radial paths at regular increments 

around each source location, out to the 

maximum range of the bathymetry data 

set or until constrained by land; (3) The 

bathymetry variation of the vertical 

plane along each modeling path was 

obtained via interpolation of the 

bathymetry dataset which has 83 m grid 

resolution; (4) The one-third octave 

source levels and TL were combined to 

obtain the received levels as a function 

of range, depth, and frequency; and (5) 

The overall received levels were 

calculated at a 1 m depth resolution 

along each propagation path by 

summing all frequency band spectral 

levels. 

Bathymetry data used in the model 

was collected from the NOAA National 

Centers for Environmental Information 

(AFSC 2019). Using NOAA’s 

temperature and salinity data, sound 

speed profiles were computed for 

depths from 0 to 100 m for May, July, 

and October to capture the range of 

possible sound speed depending on the 

time of year Hilcorp’s work could be 

conducted. These sound speed profiles 

were compiled using the Mackenzie 

Equation (1981) and are presented in 

table 8 of Hilcorp’s application 

(available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-hilcorpalaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cookinlet-alaska-0). Geoacoustic parameters 

were also incorporated into the model. 

The parameters were based on substrate 

type and their relation to depth. These 

parameters are presented in table 9 of 

Hilcorp’s application (available at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-hilcorpalaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cookinlet-alaska-0). 

Detailed broadband sound TL 

modeling in dBSea used the source level 

of 185 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m calculated in 

one-third octave band levels (31.5 Hz to 

64,000 Hz) for frequency dependent 

solutions. The frequencies associated 

with tug sound sources occur within the 

hearing range of marine mammals in 

Cook Inlet. Received levels for each 

hearing marine mammal group based on 

one-third octave auditory weighting 

functions were also calculated and 

integrated into the modeling scenarios 

of dBSea. For modeling the distances to 

relevant PTS thresholds, a weighting 

factor adjustment was not used; instead, 

the data on the spectrum associated 

with their source was used and 

incorporated the full auditory weighting 

function for each marine mammal 

hearing group. 

Furie plans to use the tugs towing the 

rig for two functions, rig positioning and 

towing. The activity was divided into 

two parts (stationary and mobile) and 

two approaches were taken for modeling 

the relevant isopleths. 

SLR’s model, described above, 

calculated the 120-dB isopleth 

propagating from three tugs towing a 

jack-up rig at 25 locations between 

Hilcorp platforms and well sites and the 

Rig Tenders Dock in Nikiski, Alaska. 

The average 120-dB isopleth across all 

locations and seasons was determined 

to be 3,850 m (Weston and SLR 2022). 

Given that Furie is conducting the same 

three tug activity as Hilcorp, also in 

middle Cook Inlet, Furie estimates, and 

NMFS concurs, that 3,850 m is also an 

appropriate estimate of its Level B 

harassment zone for tugging using three 

tugs. Similarly, Hilcorp modeled Level 

A harassment zones for each hearing 

group; Furie proposed using these Level 

A harassment zones for its towing and 

positioning activities using three tugs, 

and NMFS concurs. These zones are 

included in table 8. 

As described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of the notice 

of the proposed IHA (89 FR 51102; June 

14, 2024), when positioning the rig, 

Furie may use four tugs for up to 1 hour. 

Hilcorp did not model a 120-dB zone 

accounting for the use of four tugs. Furie 

estimated the Level B harassment zones 

for tugging and positioning with four 

tugs using a sound source level of 186.2 

dB and a TL of 18.129. 

NMFS estimated the Level A 

harassment zones from the use of four 

tugs using its User Spreadsheet and the 

Level A harassment zones modeled by 

Hilcorp for the use of three tugs. First, 

NMFS calculated the Level A 

harassment zones for the three tug 

scenario using the User Spreadsheet 

(sound source level of 185 dB, 5 hours 

of sound production, and a propagation 

loss coefficient of 18.129). Next, NMFS 

calculated the Level A harassment zones 

for the ‘‘combined scenario’’ (use of 

three tugs for 5 hours and four tugs for 

1 hour, combined). NMFS then 

calculated the ratio between the three 

tug scenario and the combined scenario. 

For all hearing groups the combined 

scenario Level A harassment isopleths 

are 13.8 percent larger than the three tug 

scenario. Rather than using the Level A 

harassment isopleths for the combined 

scenario that were calculated using the 

User Spreadsheet, NMFS applied a 13.8 

percent increase to the three tug Level 

A harassment isopleths modeled by 

Hilcorp, given that those isopleths are 

more conservative than the isopleths 

NMFS calculated using the User 

Spreadsheet. The Level A harassment 

isopleths that Furie will implement are 

included in table 8. 

The 120-dB isopleth from the use of 

four tugs is 4,483 m, as described in 

Furie’s application and included in 

table 6, calculated using a sound source 

level of 186.2 dB SPL. NMFS concurs 

and estimates a 120-dB zone of 4,483 m 

for the purpose of predicting the 

number of potential takes by Level B 

harassment from tugging and 

positioning using four tugs (Table 8). 

TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS (SOURCE LEVELS PROVIDED IN TABLE 5) 

Source Number of 

strikes per pile 

Number of 

piles per day 

Transmission 

loss coefficient 

Conductor pipe pile, Day 1 (70 percent installation) ................................................................... 6,100 0.7 15 

Conductor pipe pile, Day 2 (30 percent installation) ................................................................... ........................ 0.3 ........................


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77849 

TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS CALCULATED USING NMFS’ USER SPREADSHEET, AND USED TO DETERMINE

THE RATIO BETWEEN THE THREE TUG SCENARIO AND THREE AND FOUR TUGS COMBINED SCENARIO

Scenario 

Level A harassment isopleth (m) 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Three Tug Scenario Level A harassment Isopleth .............. 17.2 9.7 178.9 9.1 0.9 

Combined Scenario Level A harassment Isopleth .............. 19.6 11.0 203.6 10.3 1.0 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

overestimates of some degree, which 

may result in an overestimate of 

potential take by Level A harassment. 

However, this optional tool offers the 

best way to estimate isopleth distances 

when more sophisticated modeling 

methods are not available or practical. 

For stationary sources such as 

conductor pipe pile driving and rig 

positioning, the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance for the duration of the 

activity, it would be expected to incur 

PTS. For mobile sources such as 

tugging, the optional User Spreadsheet 

tool predicts the closest distance at 

which a stationary animal would not be 

expected to incur PTS if the sound 

source traveled by the stationary animal 

in a straight line at a constant speed. 

Inputs used in the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting 

estimated isopleths, are reported below. 

TABLE 8—LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FROM TUGGING AND IMPACT PILE DRIVING

Sound source 

Level A harassment isopleths (m) Level B 

harassment 

LF MF HF PW OW isopleths (m) 

Conductor pipe pile, 70 percent installation ........................................................ 3,064 109 3,650 1,640 119 1,585 

Conductor pipe pile, 30 percent installation ........................................................ 1,742 62 2,075 932 68 ........................

Tugging/Positioning, 3 Tugs 1 .................. 95 78 679 69 0 3,850 

Tugging/Positioning, 4 Tugs 2 .................. 108 89 773 79 1 4,483 

1These zones are results from Hilcorp’s modeling. 

2For otariids, Hilcorp’s model estimated a Level A harassment zone of 0 during tugging/positioning with three tugs. Therefore, for four tugs, 

NMFS applied the Level A harassment zone calculating with the User Spreadsheet. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 

Densities for marine mammals in 

Cook Inlet were derived from NMFS’ 

Marine Mammal Laboratory (MML) 

aerial surveys, typically flown in June, 

from 2000 to 2018 (Rugh et al. 2005; 

Shelden et al. 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019). 

While the surveys are concentrated for 

a few days in June annually, which may 

skew densities for seasonally present 

species, they are still the best available 

long-term dataset of marine mammal 

sightings available in Cook Inlet. (Note 

that while more recent surveys have 

been conducted and published (Shelden 

et al. 2022; Goetz et al. 2023), the 

surveyed area was not included in 

either report, therefore they were not 

used to calculate density). Density was 

calculated by summing the total number 

of animals observed and dividing the 

number sighted by the area surveyed. 

The total number of animals observed 

accounts for both lower and upper Cook 

Inlet. There are no density estimates 

available for California sea lions and 

Pacific white-sided dolphins in Cook 

Inlet, as they are so infrequently sighted. 

Densities are presented in table 9. 

TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES

Species Density 

(individuals/km2) 

Humpback whale ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00177 

Minke whale ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000009 

Gray whale ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.000075 

Fin whale ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.000311 

Killer whale .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000601 

Beluga (Trading Bay) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.004453–0.015053 

Beluga (North Cook Inlet) ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.001664 

Dall’s porpoise ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000154 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.004386 

Pacific white-sided dolphin .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES—Continued 

Species Density 

(individuals/km2) 

Harbor seal .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.241401 

Steller sea lion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.007609 

California sea lion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0 

For the beluga whale density, Furie, 

and subsequently NMFS, used the Goetz 

et al. (2012) habitat-based model. This 

model is derived from sightings and 

incorporates depth soundings, coastal 

substrate type, environmental 

sensitivity index, anthropogenic 

disturbance, and anadromous fish 

streams to predict densities throughout 

Cook Inlet. The output of this model is 

a beluga density map of Cook Inlet, 

which predicts spatially explicit density 

estimates for Cook Inlet belugas. Using 

the resulting grid densities, average 

densities were calculated for two 

regions applicable to Furie’s operations. 

The densities applicable to the area of 

activity (i.e., the North Cook Inlet Unit 

density for middle Cook Inlet activities 

and the Trading Bay density for 

activities in Trading Bay) are provided 

in table 9 and were carried forward to 

the take estimates. Likewise, when a 

range is given, the higher end of the 

range was conservatively used to 

calculate take estimates (i.e., Trading 

Bay in the Goetz model has a range of 

0.004453 to 0.015053; 0.015053 was 

used for the take estimates). 

Take Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and is authorized in each IHA. 

Year 1 IHA 

As described above, Furie plans to 

conduct rig towing and positioning and 

may install up to two conductor piles 

using an impact hammer in year 1. To 

quantify potential take by Level B 

harassment from tugging, 

acknowledging that there are contextual 

factors that make take less likely to 

result from this activity, for each 

species, Furie summed the estimated 

take for towing the rig at the beginning 

of the season, positioning the rig, and 

towing the rig at the end of the season. 

To estimate take for towing the rig 

(beginning and end of season), Furie 

multiplied the area of the Level B 

harassment zone (316.1 square 

kilometers (km2); inclusive of the full 

potential tug path of 35 km) by the 

species density (table 9). To estimate 

take for positioning the rig, Furie 

multiplied the maximum area of the 

Level B harassment zone (63.1 km2, 4 

tugs) by the species density (table 9), by 

the number of potential positioning 

attempts (2 attempts). NMFS concurs 

that this method for estimating take 

from tugging activities is appropriate. 

To estimate take by Level B 

harassment from installation of 

conductor piles, Furie multiplied the 

Level B harassment zone (7.98 km2) by 

the species density (table 9) by the 

estimated number of days that 

conductor pile installation would occur 

(4 days, 2 per pile). The Level B 

harassment zone used in the calculation 

conservatively assumes 70 percent 

installation of a conductor pile on a 

given day, and therefore, on 2 of the 4 

days that conductor piles would be 

installed, the Level B harassment zone 

would likely be smaller. NMFS concurs 

that this method for estimating take 

from pile driving activities is 

appropriate. 

NMFS summed the estimated take by 

Level B harassment from tugging and 

pile driving activities for each species. 

For species where the total calculated 

take by Level B harassment is less than 

the estimated group size for that species, 

NMFS rounded up the authorized take 

by Level B harassment to the anticipated 

group size. Authorized take during year 

1 activities is included in table 10. 

Based on the analysis described 

above, NMFS does did not authorize 

take by Level A harassment related to 

Furie’s tugging activity. For mobile 

tugging activity, the distances to the 

PTS thresholds for high frequency 

cetaceans (the only hearing group for 

which modeling results in a Level A 

harassment zone greater than 0 m) are 

smaller than the overall size of the tug 

and rig configuration, making it unlikely 

a cetacean would remain close enough 

to the tug engines for a long enough 

duration to incur PTS. For stationary 

positioning of the rig, the PTS isopleths 

are up to 679 m for high frequency 

cetaceans, but calculated with the 

assumption that an animal would 

remain within several hundred meters 

of the rig for the full 5 hours of noiseproducing activity which is unlikely. 

Therefore, take by Level A harassment 

due to stationary or mobile tugging is 

neither anticipated nor authorized. 

For conductor pile installation, NMFS 

anticipates take by Level A harassment 

for harbor seal only. For all other 

species, calculated take by Level A 

harassment takes is less than one. 

Considering that along with the low 

likelihood that an individual of these 

species would enter and remain within 

the Level A harassment zone for long 

enough to incur PTS, particularly in 

consideration of implementation of 

required shutdown zones, Furie did not 

request, nor did NMFS authorize, take 

by Level A harassment. For harbor seal, 

NMFS authorized 3 takes by Level A 

harassment, conservatively rounded up 

from 2.7 Level A harassment takes 

calculated. 

TABLE 10—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES, ACTIVITY, AND IN TOTAL, YEAR 1

Species 

Rig tow, 3 tugs Rig positioning, 4 tugs Conductor pile installation 

Total year 1 

estimated take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Authorized 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 

Ensonified 

area 

(km2) 1

Calculated 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 2

Ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Calculated 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 3

Ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Calculated 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 4

Humpback whale ................................. 316.1 1.2 63.1 0.2 7.89 0.06 1.5 3 

Minke whale ........................................ 0.006 0.001 0.0003 0.007 3 

Gray whale .......................................... 0.04 0.009 0.002 0.05 3 

Fin whale ............................................. 0.2 0.04 0.01 0.3 2 

Killer whale .......................................... 0.4 0.08 0.02 0.5 10 

Beluga (Trading Bay) .......................... 0.5 0.2 0.05 0.8 11 

Beluga (NCI) ....................................... 4.8 NA NA 4.8 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77851 

TABLE 10—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES, ACTIVITY, AND IN TOTAL, YEAR 1—Continued 

Species 

Rig tow, 3 tugs Rig positioning, 4 tugs Conductor pile installation 

Total year 1 

estimated take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Authorized 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 

Ensonified 

area 

(km2) 1

Calculated 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 2

Ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Calculated 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 3

Ensonified area 

(km2) 

Calculated 

take by 

Level B 

harassment 4

Dall’s porpoise ..................................... 0.1 0.01 0.005 0.1 6 

Harbor porpoise .................................. 2.8 0.3 0.1 3.2 12 

Pacific white-sided dolphin .................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3 

Harbor seal .......................................... 152.6 15.2 7.6 175.4 176 

Steller sea lion .................................... 4.8 0.5 0.2 5.5 6 

California sea lion ............................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 

1 This zone assumes a 35 km towing distance (the farthest potential distance that Furie may need to tow the rig). 2 Level B harassment zone area × density × 2 (towing at beginning and end of season), with the exception of Cook Inlet beluga whale. For Cook Inlet beluga 

whale, Furie used the Trading Bay density for the initial rig tow since the density is predicted to be higher there than in the North Cook Inlet Lease Unit (located offshore in middle Cook Inlet), and Furie may tug the rig though that area. Furie used the NCI density to estimate take for the end of season tow. NMFS concurs and 

has used these two separate densities in its analysis. 3 Level B harassment zone (63.1 km2) × species density (table 9) × number of potential positioning attempts (2). 4 Level B harassment zone (7.89 km2) × species density (table 9) × estimated number of days that conductor pile installation will occur (4). 

Explanations for species for which the 

authorized take is greater than 

calculated take are included below. 

Several recent surveys and monitoring 

programs have documented groups of 

humpback whales ranging up to 14 

whales in size. During the annual 

survey, Shelden et al. (2022) recorded a 

group of three humpback whales west of 

Kachemak Bay in June of 2022. Past 

annual aerial surveys have documented 

groups up to 12 in number (Shelden et 

al. 2013, 2015, 2016, 2019). During 

Hilcorp’s lower Cook Inlet seismic 

survey, group size ranged from 1 to 14 

(Fairweather Science 2020). During 

monitoring of the Harvest Alaska Cross 

Inlet Pipeline (CIPL) project (the closest 

to Furie’s Action Area), two sightings of 

three humpbacks were reported. During 

construction of the JRP in 2015, a group 

of 6 to 10 unidentified whales, thought 

to be either gray whales or humpbacks, 

was observed approximately 15 km 

northeast of the platform (Jacobs 2015). 

There were two sightings of three 

humpback whales observed near Ladd 

Landing north of the Forelands during 

the Harvest Alaska CIPL project 

(Sitkiewicz et al. 2018). Furie requested, 

and NMFS authorized, three takes of 

humpback whale by Level B harassment 

in year 1. This estimate accounts for the 

potential of take of a group of two 

animals and a solitary animal. 

Groups of up to three minke whales 

have been recorded in recent years, 

including one group of three southeast 

of Kalgin Island (Lomac-MacNair et al. 

2014). Other recent surveys in Cook 

Inlet typically have documented minkes 

traveling alone (Shelden et al. 2013, 

2015, 2017; Kendall et al. 2015, as cited 

in Weston and SLR 2022; Fairweather 

Science 2020). As the occurrence of 

minke whales is expected to be less in 

middle Cook Inlet than lower Cook Inlet 

and considering the observed group 

sizes, Furie requested, and NMFS 

authorized, 3 takes of minke whale by 

Level B harassment in year 1 to account 

for the potential of take of a group of 3 

minke whales. 

During Apache’s 2012 seismic 

program, nine gray whales were 

observed in June and July (LomacMacNair et al. 2013). During Apache’s 

seismic program in 2014, one gray 

whale was observed (Lomac-MacNair et 

al. 2014). During construction of the JRP 

in 2015, 1 gray whale was documented 

approximately 5 km from the platform, 

and a group of 6 to 10 unidentified 

whales, thought to be either gray whales 

or humpbacks, was observed 

approximately 15 km northeast of the 

platform (Jacobs 2015). During 

SAExploration’s seismic survey in 2015, 

the 2018 CIPL project, and Hilcorp’s 

2019 seismic survey, no gray whales 

were observed (Kendall et al. 2015; 

Sitkiewicz et al. 2018; Fairweather 

Science, 2020). None were observed 

during the 2018 CIPL project in middle 

Cook Inlet (Sitkiewicz et al. 2018). In 

2020 and 2021, one gray whale was 

reported in each season at the POA (61N 

2021, 2022a). The documented 

occasional presence of gray whales near 

and north of the project area suggests 

that gray whale density may be 

seasonally higher than the relatively low 

density suggested by the aerial surveys. 

Considering the project area is in 

middle Cook Inlet where sightings of 

gray whales are less common, Furie 

requested, and NMFS authorized, take 

of 3 gray whales in year 1. 

During seismic surveys conducted in 

2019 by Hilcorp in the lower Cook Inlet, 

fin whales were recorded in groups 

ranging in size from 1 to 15 individuals 

(Fairweather, 2020). During the NMFS 

aerial surveys in Cook Inlet from 2000 

to 2018, 10 sightings of 26 estimated 

individual fin whales in lower Cook 

Inlet were observed (Shelden et al. 

2013, 2015, 2016, 2019). Furie 

requested, and NMFS authorized, take 

of 1 group of 2 fin whales (the lower end 

of the range of common group sizes) in 

year 1. 

Killer whales are typically sighted in 

pods of a few animals to 20 or more 

(NOAA, 2022a). During seismic surveys 

conducted in 2019 by Hilcorp in the 

lower Cook Inlet, 21 killer whales were 

observed, either as single individuals or 

in groups ranging in size from 2 to 5 

individuals (Fairweather, 2020). Furie 

requested 10 takes by Level B 

harassment in year 1 to account for 2 

groups of 5 animals. NMFS concurs and 

authorized 10 takes by Level B 

harassment of killer whale. 

The 2018 MML aerial survey (Shelden 

and Wade 2019) estimated a median 

group size of approximately 11 beluga 

whales, although group sizes were 

highly variable (2 to 147 whales) as was 

the case in previous survey years (Boyd 

et al. 2019). Over 3 seasons of 

monitoring at the POA, 61N reported 

groups of up to 53 belugas, with a 

median group size of 3 and a mean 

group size of 4.4 (61N 2021, 2022a, 

2022b, and 2022c). Additionally, vesselbased surveys in 2019 observed beluga 

whale groups in the Susitna River Delta 

(roughly 24 km (15 miles) north of the 

Tyonek Platform) that ranged from 5 to 

200 animals (McGuire et al. 2022). The 

very large groups seen in the Susitna 

River Delta are not expected in Trading 

Bay or offshore areas near the JRP or the 

towing route for the Enterprise 151. 

However, smaller groups (i.e., around 

the median group size) could be 

traveling through to access the Susitna 

River Delta and other nearby coastal 

locations, particularly in the shoulder 

seasons when belugas are more likely to 

occur in middle Cook Inlet. Few if any 

takes of beluga whale are anticipated 

during impact installation of the 

conductor piles. Therefore, Furie 

requested, and NMFS authorized, 11 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

takes by Level B harassment of beluga 

whale in year 1. 

Dall’s porpoises typically occur in 

groups averaging between 2 and 12 

individuals (NOAA, 2024b). During 

seismic surveys conducted in 2019 by 

Hilcorp in the lower Cook Inlet, Dall’s 

porpoises were observed in groups 

ranging in size from two to seven 

individuals (Fairweather, 2020). The 

2012 Apache survey recorded two 

groups of three individual Dall’s 

porpoises (Lomac-MacNair, 2014). 

Because occurrence of Dall’s porpoise is 

anticipated to be less in middle Cook 

Inlet than lower Cook Inlet, the smaller 

end of documented group sizes (three 

individuals) is used. NMFS authorized 

six takes (two groups of three animals) 

by Level B harassment of Dall’s porpoise 

in year 1. 

Shelden et al. (2014) compiled 

historical sightings of harbor porpoises 

from lower to upper Cook Inlet that 

spanned from a few animals to 92 

individuals. The 2018 CIPL project that 

occurred just north of the Action Area 

in Cook Inlet reported 29 sightings of 44 

individuals (Sitkiewicz et al. 2018). 

While the duration of days that the tugs 

are towing a jack-up rig will be less than 

the CIPL project, given the increase in 

sightings of harbor porpoise in recent 

years, the sighting of harbor porpoise 

during Hilcorp’s rig move in June 2022, 

and the inability to shut down the tugs, 

Furie requested, and NMFS authorized, 

12 takes by Level B harassment of 

harbor porpoise. This accounts for two 

potential groups of six animals. 

Calculated take of Pacific white-sided 

dolphin was zero because the estimated 

density is zero. However, in 2014, 

during Apache’s seismic survey 

program, three Pacific white-sided 

dolphins were reported (LomacMacNair et al. 2014). They are 

considered rare in most of Cook Inlet, 

including in the lower entrance, but 

their presence was documented in 

Iniskin Bay and mid-inlet through 

passive acoustic recorders in 2019 

(Castellote et al. 2020). Furie 

conservatively requested three takes 

based on the potential that a group 

similar in size to that encountered in 

2014 could occur within the Level B 

harassment zone during project 

activities. NMFS concurs and has 

authorized three takes of Pacific whitesided dolphin by Level B harassment. 

Calculated take of California sea lions 

was zero because the assumed density 

in Cook Inlet is zero. Any potential 

sightings would likely be of lone, out of 

habitat individuals. Two solitary 

individuals were seen during the 2012 

Apache seismic survey in Cook Inlet 

(Lomac-MacNair et al. 2013). Furie 

requested two takes based on the 

potential that two lone animals could be 

sighted over a year of work, as was seen 

during Apache’s year of work. NMFS 

concurs and has authorized two takes of 

California sea lion by Level B 

harassment. 

Year 2 IHA 

Given that Furie intends to conduct 

the same activities in year 2 as in year 

1, authorized take by Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment for 

year 2 is the same as that authorized for 

year 1 (table 10). 

TABLE 11—AUTHORIZED TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Stock Abundance 

(Nbest) 

Year 1 Year 2 

Total take 

(Level A and 

Level B 

harassment) 

Take as a 

percentage 

of stock 

abundance 

Total take 

(Level A and 

Level B 

harassment) 

Take as a 

percentage 

of stock 

abundance 

Humpback whale ................................. Hawaii (Hawaii DPS) .......................... 11,278 3 <1 3 <1 

Mexico—North Pacific (Mexico DPS) 1 N/A ........................ N/A ........................ N/A 

Western North Pacific ......................... 1,084 ........................ <1 ........................ <1 

Minke whale ......................................... Alaska ................................................. 2 N/A 3 N/A 3 N/A 

Gray whale .......................................... Eastern Pacific .................................... 26,960 3 <1 3 <1 

Fin whale ............................................. Northeast Pacific ................................. 3 UND 2 N/A 2 N/A 

Killer whale .......................................... Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident 1,920 10 <1 10 <1 

Eastern North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

Transient.

587 ........................ <1 ........................ <1 

Beluga ................................................. Cook Inlet ............................................ 4 279 11 3.9 11 3.9 

Dall’s porpoise ..................................... Alaska ................................................. 5 UND 6 N/A 6 N/A 

Harbor porpoise ................................... Gulf of Alaska ..................................... 31,046 12 <1 12 <1 

Pacific white-sided dolphin .................. North Pacific ........................................ 26,880 3 <1 3 <1 

Harbor seal .......................................... Cook Inlet/Shelikof .............................. 28,411 179 <1 179 <1 

Steller sea lion ..................................... Western U.S ........................................ 6 49,932 6 <1 6 <1 

California sea lion ................................ U.S ...................................................... 257,606 2 <1 2 <1 

1 Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and, therefore, current estimates are considered unknown. 2 Reliable population estimates are not available for this stock. Please see Friday et al. (2013) and Zerbini et al. (2006) for additional information on numbers of 

minke whales in Alaska. 3 The best available abundance estimate for this stock is not considered representative of the entire stock as surveys were limited to a small portion of the stock’s 

range. 4 On June 15, 2023, NMFS released an updated abundance estimate for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales in Alaska (Goetz et al. 2023). Data collected during 

NOAA Fisheries’ 2022 aerial survey suggest that the whale population is stable or may be increasing slightly. Scientists estimated that the population size is between 

290 and 386, with a median best estimate of 331. In accordance with the MMPA, this population estimate will be incorporated into the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR, 

which will be reviewed by an independent panel of experts, the Alaska Scientific Review Group. After this review, the SAR will be made available as a draft for public 

review before being finalized. When the number of instances of takes is compared to this median abundance, the percent of the stock for which take is authorized is 

3.3 percent. 5 The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the 

stock’s range. 6 Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77853 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

In addition to the measures described 

in detail below, Furie will conduct 

briefings between conductor pipe 

installation supervisors, vessel captains 

and crew, and the marine mammal 

monitoring team before the start of all 

in-water work and when new personnel 

join the work to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures. 

Mitigation for Rig Tugging/Positioning 

NMFS anticipates that there is a 

discountable potential for marine 

mammals to incur PTS from the tugging 

and positioning, as source levels are 

relatively low, non-impulsive, and 

animals would have to remain at very 

close distances for multiple hours to 

accumulate acoustic energy at levels 

that could damage hearing. Therefore, 

we do not believe there is reasonable 

potential for Level A harassment from 

rig tugging or positioning. However, 

Furie will implement a number of 

mitigation measures designed to reduce 

the potential for and severity of Level B 

harassment, and minimize the acoustic 

footprint of the project. 

Protected Species Observers 

Furie will station PSOs at the highest 

possible vantage point on either the rig 

or on one of the tugs. 

Pre-Clearance and Post-Activity 

Monitoring 

The tugs towing a rig are not able to 

shut down while transiting or 

positioning the rig. Furie will maneuver 

the tugs towing the rig such that they 

maintain a consistent speed 

(approximately 4 knots or less [7 km/ 

hr]) and avoid multiple changes of 

speed and direction to make the course 

of the vessels as predictable as possible 

to marine mammals in the surrounding 

environment, characteristics that are 

expected to be associated with a lower 

likelihood of disturbance. 

During tugging activities, Furie will 

implement a clearance zone of 1,500 m 

around the rig for all marine mammals 

other than Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

This clearance zone was determined to 

be appropriate as it is approximately 

twice as large as largest Level A 

harassment zone (table 10) and is a 

reasonable distance within which 

cryptic species (e.g., porpoises, 

pinnipeds) could be observed. For Cook 

Inlet beluga whales, Furie will 

implement a clearance zone that 

extends as far as PSOs can feasibly 

observe for Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Prior to commencing new activities 

during daylight hours or if there is a 30- 

minute lapse in operational activities, 

the PSOs will monitor the clearance 

zone for marine mammals for 30 

minutes (i.e., pre-clearance monitoring). 

(Note, transitioning from towing to 

positioning without shutting down is 

not considered commencing a new 

operational activity.) If no marine 

mammals are observed within the 

relevant clearance zone during this preclearance monitoring period, tugging 

activities may commence. If a nonbeluga marine mammal(s) is observed 

within the relevant clearance zone 

during the pre-clearance monitoring 

period, tugging activities will be 

delayed, unless the delay interferes with 

the safety of working conditions. 

Operations will not commence until the 

PSO(s) observe that: (1) the non-beluga 

marine mammal(s) is outside of and on 

a path away from the clearance zone, or 

(2) for non-ESA-listed species, 15 

minutes have elapsed without observing 

the marine mammal, or for ESA-listed 

species, 30 minutes have elapsed 

without observing the marine mammal. 

If a beluga whale is observed within the 

relevant clearance zone during those 30 

minutes, operations may not commence 

until the beluga whale(s) is no longer 

detected at any range and 30 minutes 

have elapsed without any observations 

of beluga whales. PSOs must also 

conduct monitoring for marine 

mammals through 30 minutes postcompletion of any tugging activity each 

day, and after each stoppage of 30 

minutes or greater. 

During nighttime hours or low/nolight conditions, night-vision devices 

(NVDs) shown to be effective at 

detecting marine mammals in low-light 

conditions (e.g., Portable Visual Search7 model, or similar) will be provided to 

PSOs to aid in their monitoring of 

marine mammals. Every effort will be 

made to observe that the relevant 

clearance zone is free of marine 

mammals by using night-vision devices 

and or the naked eye, however it may 

not always be possible to see and clear 

the entire clearance zones prior to 

nighttime transport. Prior to 

commencing new operational activities 

during nighttime hours, or if there is a 

30-minute lapse in operational activities 

in low/no-light conditions, the PSOs 

must observe the extent visible while 

using night vision devices for 30 

minutes (i.e., pre-clearance monitoring). 

If no marine mammals are observed 

during this pre-clearance period, 

tugging activities may commence. If a 

marine mammal(s) is observed within 

the pre-clearance monitoring period, 

tugging activities will be delayed, unless 

the delay interferes with the safety of 

working conditions. Operations will not 

commence until the PSO(s) observe that: 

(1) the animal(s) is outside of the 

observable area; or (2) for non-ESAlisted species, 15 minutes have elapsed 

without observing the marine mammal, 

or for ESA-listed species, 30 minutes 

have elapsed without observing the 

marine mammal. Once the PSOs have 

determined one of those conditions are 

met, operations may commence. 

Should a marine mammal be observed 

during towing or positioning of the rig, 

the PSOs will monitor and carefully 

record any reactions observed until the 

towing or positioning has concluded. 

PSOs will also collect behavioral 

information on marine mammals 

sighted during monitoring efforts. 

Nighttime Work 

Furie will conduct tug towing 

operations with the tide, resulting in a 

low power output from the tugs towing 

the rig, unless human safety or 

equipment integrity is at risk. Due to the 

nature of tidal cycles in Cook Inlet, it is 

possible the most favorable tide for the 

towing operation will occur during 

nighttime hours. Furie will only operate 

the tug towing activities at night if 

necessary to accommodate a favorable 

tide. Prior to commencing operational 

activities during nighttime hours or 

low/no-light conditions, Furie must 

implement the pre-clearance measures 

described above. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

Susitna Delta 

The Tyonek platform is within the 

Susitna Delta Exclusion Zone identified 

in Hilcorp’s IHAs (87 FR 62364, October 

14, 2022). If Hilcorp conducts work at 

the Tyonek platform, it will maintain 

operatorship and control of the 

Enterprise 151 until the tow is 

underway with lines taut and the 

Enterprise 151 is under tug power. Once 

the tow is underway, Furie 

representatives will take over 

operatorship of the Enterprise 151. 

Out of concern for potential 

disturbance to Cook Inlet beluga whales 

in sensitive and essential habitat, Furie 

would maintain a distance of 2.4 km 

from the mean lower-low water (MLLW) 

line of the Susitna River Delta (Beluga 

River to the Little Susitna River) 

between April 15 and November 15. The 

dates of applicability of this exclusion 

zone have been expanded based on new 

available science, including visual 

surveys and acoustic studies, which 

indicate that substantial numbers of 

Cook Inlet beluga whales continue to 

occur in the Susitna Delta area through 

at least mid-November (M. Castellote, 

pers. comm., T. McGuire, pers. comm.). 

Mitigation for Conductor Pile 

Installation 

Furie must implement the following 

measures for impact driving of 

conductor piles. 

Shutdown Zones 

The purpose of a shutdown zone is 

generally to define an area within which 

shutdown of the activity will occur 

upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 

in anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Construction supervisors 

and crews, PSOs, and relevant Furie 

staff must avoid direct physical 

interaction with marine mammals 

during construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction. Further, Furie must 

implement shutdown zones as 

described in table 12. Furie states that 

if a shutdown or delay occurs, impact 

installation of the conductor pipe will 

not commence or resume until the 

animal has voluntarily left and been 

visually confirmed to be 100 m beyond 

the shutdown zone and on a trajectory 

away from the zone, or 30 minutes have 

passed without subsequent detections. If 

Cook Inlet beluga whales are observed 

within or approaching the Level B 

harassment zone for conductor pipe 

installation, impact installation of the 

conductor pipe will be delayed or 

halted until the beluga(s) have 

voluntarily left and been visually 

confirmed to be 100 m beyond the Level 

B harassment zone and on a trajectory 

away from the zone, or 30 minutes have 

passed without subsequent detections. 

TABLE 12—SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR

CONDUCTOR PIPE PILE DRIVING

Hearing group 

Shutdown 

zone 

(m) 

Low-frequency Cetaceans .... 2,000 

Mid-frequency Cetaceans ..... 110 

High-frequency Cetaceans ... 400 

Phocids ................................. 400 

Otariids ................................. 120 

Protected Species Observers 

Furie will establish a monitoring 

location on the JRP at the highest 

possible vantage point to monitor to the 

maximum extent possible in all 

directions. Monitoring is described in 

more detail in the Monitoring and 

Reporting section, below. 

Pre- and Post-Activity Monitoring 

Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity (i.e., pre-start clearance 

monitoring) through 30 minutes postcompletion of pile driving activity. Prestart clearance monitoring must be 

conducted during periods of visibility 

sufficient for the lead PSO to determine 

that the shutdown zones indicated in 

table 12 are clear of marine mammals. 

Pile driving may commence following 

30 minutes of observation when the 

determination is made that the 

shutdown zones are clear of marine 

mammals. If a marine mammal is 

observed entering or within the 

shutdown zones, pile driving activity 

must be delayed or halted. If pile 

driving is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zone for 15 

minutes (for non-ESA-listed species) or 

30 minutes (for ESA-listed species) have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. With the exception of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales, if a marine mammal for 

which take by Level B harassment is 

authorized is present in the Level B 

harassment zone but beyond the 

relevant shutdown zone, activities may 

begin and Level B harassment take will 

be recorded. 

Monitoring for Level A and Level B 

Harassment 

PSOs will monitor the shutdown 

zones and beyond to the extent that 

PSOs can see. Monitoring beyond the 

shutdown zones enables observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project areas 

outside the shutdown zones and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. 

Soft Start 

Soft-start procedures are used to 

provide additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, soft start requires 

contractors to provide an initial set of 

three strikes at reduced energy, followed 

by a 30-second waiting period, then two 

subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. 

A soft start must be implemented at the 

start of each day’s impact pile driving 

and at any time following cessation of 

impact pile driving for a period of 30 

minutes or longer. 

Mitigation for Helicopter Activities 

Helicopters must transit at an altitude 

of 1,500 ft (457 m) or higher, to the 

extent practicable, while adhering to 

Federal Aviation Administration flight 

rules (e.g., avoidance of cloud ceiling, 

etc.), excluding takeoffs and landing. If 

flights must occur at altitudes less than 

1,500 ft due to environmental 

conditions, aircraft must make course 

adjustments, as needed, to maintain at 

least a 1,500-foot separation from all 

observed marine mammals. Helicopters 

must not hover or circle above marine 

mammals. A minimum transit altitude 

is expected to reduce the potential for 

disturbance to marine mammals from 

transiting aircraft. 

Based on our evaluation of Furie’s 

proposed measures, as well as other 

measures considered by NMFS (i.e., the 

extended clearance zone for beluga 

whales), for both IHAs, NMFS has 

determined that the required mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77855 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations 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 while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring 

Furie will abide by all monitoring and 

reporting measures contained within the 

IHAs, and their Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (see 

Appendix B of Furie’s application). A 

summary of those measures and 

additional requirements from NMFS is 

provided below. 

A minimum of two NMFS-approved 

PSOs will be on-watch during all 

activities wherein the rig is attached to 

the tugs for the duration of the project. 

PSOs will be stationed aboard a tug or 

the rig during tug towing and 

positioning and may use a combination 

of equipment to perform marine 

mammal observations and to verify the 

required monitoring distance from the 

project site, including 7 by 50 

binoculars and NMFS approved NVDs 

for low light and nighttime operations. 

A minimum of two NMFS-approved 

PSOs will be stationed on the JRP at the 

highest possible vantage point to 

monitor to the maximum extent possible 

in all directions during pile driving. 

PSOs will be independent of the activity 

contractor (for example, employed by a 

subcontractor) and have no other 

assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. At least one PSO will have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during an activity pursuant to 

a NMFS-issued Incidental Take 

Authorization or Letter of Concurrence. 

Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience (including relevant 

Alaska Native traditional knowledge), 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field), or training for prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO. Where a team of three or more 

PSOs is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during an activity pursuant to 

a NMFS-issued incidental take 

authorization. 

PSOs will also have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• PSOs must be able to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• PSOs must have experience or 

training in the field identification of 

marine mammals, including the 

identification of behaviors; 

• PSOs must have sufficient training, 

orientation, or experience with the 

tugging operation to provide for 

personal safety during observations; 

• PSOs must have sufficient writing 

skills to record required information 

including but not limited to the number 

and species of marine mammals 

observed; dates and times when inwater tugging activities were conducted; 

dates, times, and reason for 

implementation of mitigation (or why 

mitigation was not implemented when 

required); and marine mammal 

behavior; and 

• PSOs must have the ability to 

communicate orally, by radio or in 

person, with project personnel to 

provide real-time information on marine 

mammals observed in the area as 

necessary. 

Reporting 

Furie will submit interim monthly 

reports for all months in which tugs 

towing, holding, or positioning the rig 

occurs. Monthly reports will include a 

summary of marine mammal species 

and behavioral observations, delays, and 

tugging activities completed. They also 

must include an assessment of the 

amount of tugging remaining to be 

completed, in addition to the number of 

Cook Inlet beluga whales observed 

within estimated harassment zones to 

date. 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

the tug towing rig activities for the year. 

It will include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated marine mammal observation 

data sheets in an electronic format. 

Specifically, the report must include the 

following information: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Activities occurring during each 

observation period, including (a) the 

type of activity, (b) the total duration of 

each type of activity, (c) the number of 

attempts required for positioning, (d) 

when nighttime operations were 

required (e) whether towing against the 

tide was required, (f) the number and 

type of piles that were driven and the 

method (e.g., impact, vibratory, downthe-hole), and (g) total number of strikes 

for each pile. 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at the beginning 

and end of the PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state, tidal state, 

and any other relevant weather 

conditions, including cloud cover, fog, 

sun glare, overall visibility to the 

horizon, and estimated observable 

distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, (a) name of PSO who sighted 

the animal(s) and PSO location and 

activity at time of sighting, (b) time of 

sighting, (c) identification of the 

animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest 

possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species, (d) 

distance and location of each observed 

marine mammal relative to the tugs or 

pile being driven for each sighting, (e) 

estimated number of animals (min/max/ 

best estimate), (f) estimated number of 

animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, 

neonates, group composition, etc.), (g) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77856 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

animal’s closest point of approach and 

estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone, (h) description of any 

marine mammal behavioral observations 

(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding 

or traveling), including an assessment of 

behavioral responses thought to have 

resulted from the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft 

summary report will constitute the final 

report. If NMFS submits comments, 

Furie will submit a final summary 

report addressing NMFS comments 

within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in Furie’s activities discover an injured 

or dead marine mammal, Furie must 

report the incident to the Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.davis@noaa.gov) and to the 

Alaska regional stranding network as 

soon as feasible. If the death or injury 

was clearly caused by the specified 

activity, Furie must immediately cease 

the activities until NMFS OPR is able to 

review the circumstances of the incident 

and determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the IHAs. The Holder 

must not resume their activities until 

notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

(ii) Species identification (if known) 

or description of the animal(s) involved; 

(iii) Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

(iv) Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

(v) If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

(vi) General circumstances under 

which the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

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 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 11, except for Cook Inlet 

beluga whale and harbor seal, given that 

many of the anticipated effects of this 

project on different marine mammal 

stocks are expected to be relatively 

similar in nature. For Cook Inlet beluga 

whales and harbor seals, there are 

meaningful differences in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population, or impacts on habitat; 

therefore, we provide a separate 

independent detailed analysis for Cook 

Inlet beluga whales and harbor seals 

following the analysis for other species 

for which we authorized take. 

NMFS has identified several key 

factors which may be employed to 

assess the level of analysis necessary to 

conclude whether potential impacts 

associated with a specified activity 

should be considered negligible. These 

include (but are not limited to) the type 

and magnitude of taking, the amount 

and importance of the available habitat 

for the species or stock that is affected, 

the duration of the anticipated effect on 

the individuals, and the status of the 

species or stock. The potential effects of 

the specified activity on humpback 

whales, minke whales, gray whales, fin 

whales, killer whales, Dall’s porpoises, 

harbor porpoises, Pacific white-sided 

dolphins, Steller sea lions, and 

California sea lions are discussed below. 

These factors also apply to Cook Inlet 

beluga whales and harbor seals; 

however, additional analysis for Cook 

Inlet beluga whales and harbor seals is 

provided in a separate subsection 

below. 

Furie’s tugging activities associated 

with this project, as outlined previously, 

have the potential to harass marine 

mammals. Specifically, the specified 

activities may result in take, in the form 

of Level B harassment, from underwater 

sounds generated by tugs towing, 

holding, and positioning a rig. Potential 

takes could occur if marine mammals 

are present in zones ensonified above 

the thresholds for Level B harassment, 

identified above, while activities are 

underway. 

Furie’s planned activities and 

associated impacts will occur within a 

limited area of the affected species’ or 

stocks’ ranges over a total of 4 days each 

year for tugging, and 2 days for pile 

driving. The intensity and duration of 

take by Level B harassment will be 

minimized through use of mitigation 

measures described herein. Further the 

amount of take authorized is small 

when compared to stock abundance 

(table 11). In addition, NMFS does not 

anticipate that serious injury or 

mortality will occur as a result of Furie’s 

planned activity given the nature of the 

activity, even in the absence of required 

mitigation. 

Exposures to elevated sound levels 

produced during tugging and pile 

driving activities may cause behavioral 

disturbance of some individuals within 

the vicinity of the sound source. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to Furie’s tugging activities 

are expected to be mild, short term, and 

temporary. Effects on individuals that 

are taken by Level B harassment, as 

enumerated in the Estimated Take 

section, on the basis of reports in the 

literature as well as monitoring from 

other similar activities conducted by 

Furie (Horsley and Larson, 2023), will 

likely be limited to behavioral response 

such as increased swimming speeds, 

changing in directions of travel and 

diving and surfacing behaviors, 

increased respiration rates, or 

interrupted foraging (if such activity 

were occurring) (Ridgway et al. 1997; 

Nowacek et al. 2007; Thorson and Reyff, 

2006; Kendall and Cornick 2015; 

Goldbogen et al. 2013b; Blair et al. 2016; 

Wisniewska et al. 2018; Piwetz et al. 

2021). Marine mammals within the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77857 

Level B harassment zones may not 

present any visual cues they are 

disturbed by activities, or they may 

become alert, avoid the area, leave the 

area, or have other mild responses that 

are not observable such as increased 

stress levels (e.g., Rolland et al. 2012; 

Lusseau, 2005; Bejder et al. 2006; Rako 

et al. 2013; Pirotta et al. 2015b; Pe ́rezJorge et al. 2016). They may also exhibit 

increased vocalization rates (e.g., 

Dahlheim 1987; Dahlheim and 

Castellote 2016), louder vocalizations 

(e.g., Frankel and Gabriele 2017; 

Fournet et al. 2018), alterations in the 

spectral features of vocalizations (e.g., 

Castellote et al. 2012), or a cessation of 

communication signals (e.g., Tsujii et al. 

2018). However, as described in the 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

section, marine mammals observed near 

Furie’s tugging activities have shown 

little to no observable reactions to 

tugging activities (Horsley and Larson 

2023). 

Tugs pulling, holding, and 

positioning a rig are slow-moving as 

compared to typical recreational and 

commercial vessel traffic. Assuming an 

animal was stationary, exposure to 

sound above the Level B harassment 

threshold from the moving tug 

configuration (which comprises most of 

the tug activity being considered) will 

be on the order of minutes in any 

particular location. The slow, 

predictable, and generally straight path 

of this activity is expected to further 

lower the likelihood of more than lowlevel responses to the sound. Also, this 

slow transit along a predictable path is 

planned in an area of routine vessel 

traffic where many large vessels move in 

slow straight-line paths, and some 

individuals are expected to be 

habituated to these sorts of sounds. 

While it is possible that animals may 

swim around the project area, avoiding 

closer approaches to the boats, we do 

not expect them to abandon any 

intended path. Further, most animals 

present in the region will likely be 

transiting through the area; therefore, 

any potential exposure is expected to be 

brief. Based on the characteristics of the 

sound source and the other activities 

regularly encountered in the area, it is 

unlikely Furie’s planned tugging 

activities will be of a duration or 

intensity expected to result in impacts 

on reproduction or survival. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment during pile 

driving, on the basis of reports in the 

literature as well as monitoring from 

other similar activities, will likely be 

limited to reactions such as increased 

swimming speeds, increased surfacing 

time, or interrupted foraging (if such 

activity were occurring; e.g., Thorson 

and Reyff 2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma 

2014; ABR 2016). Most likely, 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving and removal. If sound 

produced by project activities is 

sufficiently disturbing, animals are 

likely to simply avoid the area while the 

activity is occurring, particularly as the 

project is expected to occur over a 

maximum of just 2 days of in-water pile 

driving during each year. 

Most of the species present in the 

region will only be present temporarily 

based on seasonal patterns or during 

transit between other habitats. These 

temporarily present species will be 

exposed to even smaller periods of 

noise-generating activity, further 

decreasing the impacts. Most likely, 

individual animals will simply move 

away from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the area. 

Takes may also occur during important 

feeding times. The project area though 

represents a small portion of available 

foraging habitat and impacts on marine 

mammal feeding for all species should 

be minimal. 

We anticipate that any potential 

reactions and behavioral changes are 

expected to subside quickly when the 

exposures cease and, therefore, we do 

not expect long-term adverse 

consequences from Furie’s activities for 

individuals of any species other than 

harbor seal (for which take by Level A 

harassment is authorized, discussed 

further below). The intensity of Level B 

harassment events will be minimized 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein. Furie will use PSOs to 

monitor for marine mammals before 

commencing any tugging or 

construction activities, which will 

minimize the potential for marine 

mammals to be present within Level B 

harassment zones when tugs are under 

load or within the shutdown zones at 

the commencement of construction. 

Further, given the absence of any major 

rookeries, haulouts, or areas of known 

biological significance for marine 

mammals (e.g., foraging hot spots) 

within the estimated harassment zones 

(other than critical habitat and a BIA for 

Cook Inlet beluga whales as described 

below), we conclude that any takes by 

Level B harassment will have an 

inconsequential short-term effect on 

individuals and will not result in 

population-level impacts. 

Theoretically, repeated, sequential 

exposure to elevated noise from tugging 

activities over a long duration could 

result in more severe impacts to 

individuals that could affect a 

population (via sustained or repeated 

disruption of important behaviors such 

as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing; Southall et al. 2007). 

Alternatively, marine mammals exposed 

to repetitious sounds may become 

habituated, desensitized, or tolerant 

after initial exposure to these sounds 

(reviewed by Richardson et al. 1995; 

Southall et al. 2007). Cook Inlet is a 

regional hub of marine transportation, 

and is used by various classes of vessels, 

including containerships, bulk cargo 

freighters, tankers, commercial and 

sport-fishing vessels, and recreational 

vessels. Off-shore vessels, tug vessels, 

and tour boats represent 86 percent of 

the total operating days for vessels in 

Cook Inlet (BOEM 2016). Given that 

marine mammals still frequent and use 

Cook Inlet despite being exposed to 

anthropogenic sounds such as those 

produced by tug boats and other vessels 

across many years, population level 

impacts resulting from the additional 

noise produced by Furie’s tugging 

activities are not anticipated. 

Take by Level A harassment of harbor 

seals is authorized to account for the 

potential that an animal could enter and 

remain within the area between a Level 

A harassment zone and the shutdown 

zone during conductor pile installation 

for a duration long enough to be taken 

by Level A harassment. Any take by 

Level A harassment is expected to arise 

from, at most, a small degree of PTS 

because animals would need to be 

exposed to higher levels and/or longer 

duration than are expected to occur here 

in order to incur any more than a small 

degree of PTS. Additionally, some 

subset of the individuals that are 

behaviorally harassed could also 

simultaneously incur some small degree 

of TTS for a short duration of time. 

Because of the small degree anticipated, 

though, any PTS or TTS potentially 

incurred here is not expected to 

adversely impact individual fitness, let 

alone annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

Furie’s tugging activities are not 

expected to have significant adverse 

effects on any marine mammal habitat 

as no temporary or physical impacts to 

habitat are anticipated to result from the 

specified activities. During both tugging 

and construction, marine mammal 

habitat may be impacted by elevated 

sound levels, but these impacts will be 

temporary. In addition to being 

temporary and short in overall duration, 

the acoustic footprint of the activity is 

small relative to the overall distribution 

of the animals in the area and their use 

of the area. Additionally, the habitat 

within the estimated acoustic footprint 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

is not known to be heavily used by 

marine mammals. 

Impacts to marine mammal prey 

species are expected to be minor and 

temporary, having, at most, short-term 

effects on foraging success of individual 

marine mammals, and likely no effect 

on the populations of marine mammals 

as a whole. Overall, as described above, 

the area anticipated to be impacted by 

Furie’s tugging and construction 

activities is very small compared to the 

available surrounding habitat, and does 

not include habitat of particular 

importance. The most likely impact to 

prey will be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the immediate area. During 

tugging and construction activities, it is 

expected that some fish will temporarily 

leave the area of disturbance (e.g., 

Nakken 1992; Olsen 1979; Ona and 

Godo 1990; Ona and Toresen, 1988), 

thus impacting marine mammals’ 

foraging opportunities in a limited 

portion of their foraging range. But, 

because of the relatively small area of 

the habitat that may be affected, and 

lack of any foraging habitat of particular 

importance, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

Finally, Furie will minimize exposure 

of marine mammals to elevated noise 

levels by implementing mitigation 

measures for tugging and construction 

activities. For tugging, Furie will delay 

tugging activities if marine mammals are 

observed during the pre-clearance 

monitoring period. Furie will also 

implement vessel maneuvering 

measures to reduce the likelihood of 

disturbing marine mammals during any 

periods when marine mammals may be 

present near the vessels. Lastly, Furie 

will also reduce the impact of their 

activity by conducting tugging 

operations with favorable tides 

whenever feasible. For construction, 

Furie will also delay the start of pile 

driving activities if marine mammals are 

observed during the pre-clearance 

monitoring period and will implement 

hearing group-specific shutdown zones 

during the activities. Furie will also 

implement soft-start procedures to 

provide warning and/or give marine 

mammals a chance to leave the area 

prior to the hammer operating at full 

capacity. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors (with additional 

analyses for Cook Inlet beluga whales 

included below) primarily support our 

determination that the impacts resulting 

from the activities described for both of 

these IHAs are not expected to adversely 

affect the species or stocks through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Take by Level A harassment is not 

anticipated or authorized for any 

species except harbor seal; 

• Exposure to sounds above 

harassment thresholds will likely be 

brief given the short duration of the 

specified activity and the transiting 

behavior of marine mammals in the 

action area; 

• Marine mammal densities are low 

in the project area; therefore, there will 

not be substantial numbers of marine 

mammals exposed to the noise from the 

project compared to the affected 

population sizes; 

• Take will not occur in places and/ 

or times where take would be more 

likely to accrue to impacts on 

reproduction or survival, such as within 

ESA-designated or proposed critical 

habitat or BIAs (other than for Cook 

Inlet beluga whales as described below), 

or other habitats critical to recruitment 

or survival (e.g., rookery); 

• The project area represents a very 

small portion of the available foraging 

area for all potentially impacted marine 

mammal species; 

• Take will only occur within middle 

Cook Inlet and Trading Bay—a limited 

area of any given species or stock’s 

home range; 

• Monitoring reports from previous 

tugging activities in Cook Inlet have 

documented little to no observable 

effect on individuals of the same species 

and stocks impacted by the specified 

activities; 

• The required mitigation measures 

(i.e., pre-clearance monitoring, vessel 

maneuver) are expected to be effective 

in reducing the effects of the specified 

activity by minimizing the numbers of 

marine mammals exposed to sound and 

the intensity of the exposures; and 

• The intensity of anticipated takes 

by Level B harassment is low for all 

species and stocks, consisting of, at 

worst, temporary modifications in 

behavior, and will not be of a duration 

or intensity expected to result in 

impacts on reproduction or survival of 

individuals. 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 

For Cook Inlet beluga whales, we 

further discuss our negligible impact 

analysis in addition to the assessment 

above for all species in the context of 

potential impacts to this endangered 

stock based on our evaluation of the 

authorized take (table 11). 

All tugging activities will be done in 

a manner implementing best 

management practices to preserve water 

quality, and no work will occur around 

creek mouths or river systems leading to 

prey abundance reductions. In addition, 

no physical structures will restrict 

passage; however, impacts to the 

acoustic habitat are relevant and 

discussed here. While the specified 

activity will occur within Cook Inlet 

beluga whale Critical Habitat Area 2 

(and potentially Area 1, depending on 

the origin of the tug tow), and 

recognizing that Cook Inlet beluga 

whales have been identified as a small 

and resident population, monitoring 

data from Hilcorp’s activities suggest 

that tugging activities do not discourage 

Cook Inlet beluga whales from transiting 

throughout Cook Inlet and between 

critical habitat areas and that the whales 

do not abandon critical habitat areas 

(Horsley and Larson, 2023). In addition, 

large numbers of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales have continued to use Cook Inlet 

and pass through the area, likely 

traveling to critical foraging grounds 

found in upper Cook Inlet, while noiseproducing anthropogenic activities, 

including vessel use, have taken place 

during the past two decades (e.g., 

Shelden et al. 2013, 2015, 2017, 2022; 

Shelden and Wade 2019; Geotz et al. 

2023). These findings are not surprising 

as food is a strong motivation for marine 

mammals. As described in Forney et al. 

(2017), animals typically favor 

particular areas because of their 

importance for survival (e.g., feeding or 

breeding), and leaving may have 

significant costs to fitness (reduced 

foraging success, increased predation 

risk, increased exposure to other 

anthropogenic threats). Consequently, 

animals may be highly motivated to 

maintain foraging behavior in historical 

foraging areas despite negative impacts 

(e.g., Rolland et al. 2012). 

Generation of sound may result in 

avoidance behaviors that will be limited 

in time and space relative to the larger 

availability of important habitat areas in 

Cook Inlet; however, the area ensonified 

by sound from the specified activity is 

anticipated to be small compared to the 

overall available critical habitat for Cook 

Inlet beluga whales to feed and travel. 

Therefore, the specified activity will not 

create a barrier to movement through or 

within important areas. We anticipate 

that disturbance to Cook Inlet beluga 

whales will manifest in the same 

manner as other marine mammals 

described above (i.e., increased 

swimming speeds, changes in the 

direction of travel and dive behaviors, 

increased respiration rates, decreased 

foraging (if such activity were 

occurring), or alterations to 

communication signals). We do not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77859 

believe exposure to elevated noise levels 

during transit past tugging or 

construction activities will have adverse 

effects on individuals’ fitness for 

reproduction or survival. 

Although data demonstrate that Cook 

Inlet beluga whales are not abandoning 

the planned project area during 

anthropogenic activities, results of an 

expert elicitation (EE) at a 2016 

workshop, which predicted the impacts 

of noise on Cook Inlet beluga whale 

survival and reproduction given lost 

foraging opportunities, helped to inform 

our assessment of impacts on this stock. 

The 2016 EE workshop used conceptual 

models of an interim population 

consequences of disturbance (PCoD) for 

marine mammals (NRC, 2005; New et al. 

2014; Tollit et al. 2016) to help in 

understanding how noise-related 

stressors might affect vital rates 

(survival, birth rate and growth) for 

Cook Inlet beluga whale (King et al. 

2015). NMFS (2016b) suggests that the 

main direct effects of noise on Cook 

Inlet beluga whales are likely to be 

through masking of vocalizations used 

for communication and prey location 

and habitat degradation. The 2016 

workshop on Cook Inlet beluga whales 

was specifically designed to provide 

regulators with a tool to help 

understand whether chronic and acute 

anthropogenic noise from various 

sources and projects are likely to be 

limiting recovery of the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale population. The full report 

can be found at https://

www.smruconsulting.com/publications/ 

with a summary of the expert elicitation 

portion of the workshop below. 

For each of the noise effect 

mechanisms chosen for EE, the experts 

provided a set of parameters and values 

that determined the forms of a 

relationship between the number of 

days of disturbance a female Cook Inlet 

beluga whale experiences in a particular 

period and the effect of that disturbance 

on her energy reserves. Examples 

included the number of days of 

disturbance during the period of April, 

May, and June that would be predicted 

to reduce the energy reserves of a 

pregnant Cook Inlet beluga whale to 

such a level that she is certain to 

terminate the pregnancy or abandon the 

calf soon after birth, the number of days 

of disturbance in the period of AprilSeptember required to reduce the energy 

reserves of a lactating Cook Inlet beluga 

whale to a level where she is certain to 

abandon her calf, and the number of 

days of disturbance where a female fails 

to gain sufficient energy by the end of 

summer to maintain herself and her calf 

during the subsequent winter. Overall, 

median values ranged from 16 to 69 

days of disturbance depending on the 

question. However, for this elicitation, a 

‘‘day of disturbance’’ was defined as any 

day on which an animal loses the ability 

to forage for at least one tidal cycle (i.e., 

it forgoes 50–100 percent of its energy 

intake on that day). The day of 

disturbance considered in the context of 

the report is notably more severe than 

the Level B harassment expected to 

result from these activities, which as 

described is expected to be comprised 

predominantly of temporary 

modifications in the behavior of 

individual Cook Inlet beluga whales 

(e.g., faster swim speeds, longer dives, 

decreased sighting durations, alterations 

in communication). Also, NMFS 

authorized 11 instances of take by Level 

B harassment during each year, with the 

instances representing disturbance 

events within a day—this means that 

either 11 different individual Cook Inlet 

beluga whales are disturbed on no more 

than 1 day each, or some lesser number 

of individuals may be disturbed on 

more than 1 day, but with the total 

number of takes not exceeding 11. Given 

the overall anticipated take, and the 

short duration of the specified activities, 

it is unlikely that any one Cook Inlet 

beluga whale will be disturbed on more 

than a couple of days. Further, Furie has 

required mitigation measures specific to 

Cook Inlet beluga whales whereby they 

will not begin tugging activities should 

a Cook Inlet beluga whale be observed 

at any distance. While take by Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance) is 

authorized, this measure, along with 

other mitigation measures described 

herein, will limit the severity of the 

effects of that Level B harassment to 

behavioral changes such as increased 

swim speeds, changes in diving and 

surfacing behaviors, and alterations to 

communication signals, not the loss of 

foraging capabilities. Finally, take by 

mortality, serious injury, or Level A 

harassment of Cook Inlet beluga whales 

is not anticipated or authorized. 

In summary and as described above, 

the additional following factors 

primarily support our determination 

that the impacts resulting from the 

activities described for both of these 

IHAs are not expected to adversely 

affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival: 

• The area of exposure will be limited 

to habitat primarily used for transiting, 

and not areas known to be of particular 

importance for feeding or reproduction; 

• The activities are not expected to 

result in Cook Inlet beluga whales 

abandoning critical habitat nor are they 

expected to restrict passage of Cook 

Inlet beluga whales within or between 

critical habitat areas; and 

• Any disturbance to Cook Inlet 

beluga whales is expected to be limited 

to temporary modifications in behavior, 

and will not be of a duration or intensity 

expected to result in impacts on 

reproduction or survival. 

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 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take authorized for year 

1 of activity will have a negligible 

impact on all affected marine mammal 

species or stocks. Separately, NMFS 

finds that the total marine mammal take 

authorized for year 2 of activity will 

have a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, take of only 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers (86 

FR 5322, January 19, 2021). 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 11 provides the quantitative 

analysis informing our small numbers 

determinations for the year 1 and year 

2 IHAs. For all stocks whose abundance 

estimate is known, the amount of taking 

is less than one-third of the best 

available population abundance 

estimate (in fact it is less than 1 percent 

for all stocks, except for Cook Inlet 

beluga whales whose authorized take is 

3.9 percent of the stock; table 11). The 

number of animals authorized to be 

taken from these stocks therefore, would 

be considered small relative to the 

relevant stock’s abundances even if each 

estimated take occurred to a new 

individual. 

Abundance estimates for the MexicoNorth Pacific stock of humpback whales 

are based upon data collected more than 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
77860 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 

8 years ago and, therefore, current 

estimates are considered unknown 

(Young et al. 2023). The most recent 

minimum population estimates (NMIN) 

for this population include an estimate 

of 2,241 individuals between 2003 and 

2006 (Martinez-Aguilar 2011) and 766 

individuals between 2004 and 2006 

(Wade 2021). NMFS’ Guidelines for 

Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks 

suggest that the NMIN estimate of the 

stock should be adjusted to account for 

potential abundance changes that may 

have occurred since the last survey and 

provide reasonable assurance that the 

stock size is at least as large as the 

estimate (NMFS 2023b). The abundance 

trend for this stock is unclear; therefore, 

there is no basis for adjusting these 

estimates (Young et al. 2023). Assuming 

the population has been stable, and that 

the 3 authorized takes of humpback 

whale will all be of the Mexico-North 

Pacific stock, this represents small 

numbers of this stock (less than 1 

percent of the stock assuming a NMIN of 

2,241 individuals and <1 percent of the 

stock assuming an NMIN of 766 

individuals). 

A lack of an accepted stock 

abundance value for the Alaska stock of 

minke whale did not allow for the 

calculation of an expected percentage of 

the population that will be affected 

during each Year. The most relevant 

estimate of partial stock abundance is 

1,233 minke whales in coastal waters of 

the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian 

Islands (Zerbini et al. 2006). Given three 

authorized takes by Level B harassment 

for the stock during year 1 and year 2, 

comparison to the best estimate of stock 

abundance shows, at most, less than 1 

percent of the stock is expected to be 

impacted. 

There is no stock-wide abundance 

estimate for Northeast Pacific fin 

whales. However, Young et al. (2022) 

estimate the minimum stock size for the 

areas surveyed is 2,554. Given 2 

authorized takes by Level B harassment 

for the stock during year 1 and year 2, 

comparison to the minimum population 

estimate shows, at most, less than 1 

percent of the stock is expected to be 

impacted. 

The Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise 

has no official NMFS abundance 

estimate for this area, as the most recent 

estimate is greater than 8 years old. As 

described in the 2022 Alaska SAR 

(Young et al. 2023) the minimum 

population estimate is assumed to 

correspond to the point estimate of the 

2015 vessel-based abundance computed 

by Rone et al. (2017) in the Gulf of 

Alaska (N = 13,110; CV = 0.22). Given 

6 authorized takes by Level B 

harassment for the stock during year 1 

and year 2, comparison to the minimum 

population estimate shows, at most, less 

than 1 percent of the stock is expected 

to be impacted. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the required mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks for the 

year 1 IHA. Separately, NMFS also finds 

that small numbers of marine mammals 

will be taken relative to the population 

size of the affected species or stocks for 

the year 2 IHA. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. 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. 

Subsistence communities identified 

as project stakeholders near Furie’s 

middle Cook Inlet (and potentially 

Trading Bay, depending on where Furie 

takes over the rig from Hilcorp) 

activities include the Village of 

Salamatof and the Native Village of 

Tyonek. The Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game Community Subsistence 

Information System does not contain 

data for Salamatof. For the purposes of 

our analyses for the year 1 and year 2 

IHAs, we assume the subsistence uses 

are similar to those of nearby 

communities such as Kenai. Tyonek, on 

the western side of lower Cook Inlet, has 

a subsistence harvest area that extends 

from the Susitna River south to Tuxedni 

Bay (BOEM 2016). In Tyonek, harbor 

seals were harvested between June and 

September by 6 percent of the 

households (Jones et al. 2015). Seals 

were harvested in several areas, 

encompassing an area stretching 32.2 

km (20 mi) along the Cook Inlet 

coastline from the McArthur Flats north 

to the Beluga River. Seals were searched 

for or harvested in the Trading Bay areas 

as well as from the beach adjacent to 

Tyonek (Jones et al. 2015). Subsistence 

hunting of whales is not known to 

currently occur in Cook Inlet. 

Furie’s tug towing rig activities may 

overlap with subsistence hunting of 

seals. However, these activities typically 

occur along the shoreline or very close 

to shore near river mouths, whereas 

most of Furie’s tugging (all, with the 

exception of returning the rig to the Rig 

Tender’s Dock, located in an 

industrialized area of Nikiski, Alaska), 

as well as its pile driving, is in the 

middle of the Inlet and rarely near the 

shoreline or river mouths. Any 

harassment to harbor seals is anticipated 

to be short-term, mild, and not result in 

any abandonment or behaviors that 

would make the animals unavailable for 

harvest. However, to further minimize 

any potential effects of their action on 

subsistence activities, Furie plans to 

conduct stakeholder outreach before the 

planned operations in 2024 and 2025, 

according to its Stakeholder Engagement 

Plan. According to Furie, they contacted 

Alaska Native Tribes in the Cook Inlet 

Region by email and phone message. To 

date, Furie has not received any 

responses from the Tribes. Furie states 

it will expand the effort to include Cook 

Inlet Regional Inc. and Chugach Alaska 

Corporation and will continue to reach 

out to the Tribes as the project nears. 

Furie must coordinate with local Tribes 

as described in its Stakeholder 

Engagement Plan, notify the 

communities of any changes in the 

operation, and take action to avoid or 

mitigate impacts to subsistence harvests. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses from Furie’s 

planned activities under the year 1 IHA. 

Separately, NMFS has also determined 

that there will not be an unmitigable 

adverse impact on subsistence uses from 

Furie’s planned activities under the year 

2 IHA. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2024 / Notices 77861 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the NMFS AKRO. 

Four marine mammal species, fin 

whale, humpback whale (Mexico 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS)), 

beluga whale (Cook Inlet), and Steller 

sea lion (Western DPS) occur in the 

project area and are listed as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA. The 

NMFS AKRO issued a Biological 

Opinion under section 7 of the ESA on 

the issuance of two IHAs to Furie under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by 

NMFS OPR. The Biological Opinion 

concluded that the action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

these species and is not likely to destroy 

or adversely modify their critical 

habitat. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our 

proposed action i.e., the issuance of two 

consecutive IHAs) and alternatives with 

respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and analyzed the 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

that would result from Furie’s natural 

gas activities. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed 

on September 12, 2024. Copies of the 

EA and FONSI are available at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-oil-and-gas. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued two consecutive 

IHAs to Furie for the potential 

harassment of small numbers of 12 

marine mammal species incidental to 

Furie’s natural gas activities in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska, that includes the 

previously explained mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting requirements. 

Dated: September 16, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21469 Filed 9–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EF14–1–008] 

Southwestern Power Administration; 

Notice of Filing 

Take notice that on September 13, 

2024, Southwestern Power 

Administration submitted a tariff filing: 

2013 IS Rate Extension Informational 

Filing—2024 to be effective 10/1/2024. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. On or before the 

comment date, it is not necessary to 

serve motions to intervene or protests 

on persons other than the Applicant. 

In addition to publishing the full text 

of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (https://

www.ferc.gov). From the Commission’s 

Home Page on the internet, this 

information is available on eLibrary. 

The full text of this document is 

available on eLibrary in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field. 

User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours from 

FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652 

(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings of comments, protests 

and interventions in lieu of paper using 

the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://

www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file 

electronically may mail similar 

pleadings to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand 

delivered submissions in docketed 

proceedings should be delivered to 

Health and Human Services, 12225 

Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

The Commission’s Office of Public 

Participation (OPP) supports meaningful 

public engagement and participation in 

Commission proceedings. OPP can help 

members of the public, including 

landowners, environmental justice 

communities, Tribal members and 

others, access publicly available 

information and navigate Commission 

processes. For public inquiries and 

assistance with making filings such as 

interventions, comments, or requests for 

rehearing, the public is encouraged to 

contact OPP at (202) 502–6595 or OPP@

ferc.gov. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on October 15, 2024. 

Dated: September 17, 2024. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21723 Filed 9–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 15368–000] 

Orcas Power & Light Cooperative; 

Notice of Preliminary Permit 

Application Accepted for Filing and 

Soliciting Comments, Motions To 

Intervene, and Competing Applications 

On July 22, 2024, Orcas Power & Light 

Cooperative filed an application for a 

preliminary permit, pursuant to section 

4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 

proposing to study the feasibility of the 

Rosario Strait Tidal Energy Project (or 

Project) to be located on Rosario Strait 

in the Salish Sea, near the town of 

Eastsound, Washington. The sole 

purpose of a preliminary permit, if 

issued, is to grant the permit holder 

priority to file a license application 

during the permit term. A preliminary 

permit does not authorize the permit 

holder to perform any land-disturbing 

activities or otherwise enter upon lands 

or waters owned by others without the 

owners’ express permission. 

The proposed project would consist of 

the following: (1) a 245 foot-long, 13 

foot-wide floating tube; (2) two wings 

attached to 65 foot diameter rotors with 

an overall width of 165 feet; (3) two 1.2 

MW turbines (4) four catenary mooring 

lines (each approximately 740 feet long); 

(5) four seabed anchors; (6) a 3.3 mile 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1