[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77836-77861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21469]


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

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/incidental-take-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

[[Page 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/incidental-
take-authorizations-construction-activities. 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 oil-bearing 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 non-industrial 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'

[[Page 77838]]

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 (SPL<INF>rms</INF>) 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 SPL<INF>rms</INF> 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

[[Page 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 cost-effective 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 photo-identification 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 pre-clearance 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

[[Page 77840]]

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 ESA-designated 
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 non-invasive 
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

[[Page 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 gas-related 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.

[[Page 77842]]

    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 noise-
producing 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 
statutorily-required 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 mid-frequency 
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

[[Page 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-cook-inlet-beluga-whale-delphinapterus-leucas, 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-and-trend-belugas-delphinapterus-leucas-cook-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/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

                                            Table 1--Species \1\ Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \2\          abundance survey) \3\               SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Order Artiodactyla--Cetacea--Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern N Pacific......  -, -, N             26,960 (0.05, 25,849,         801        131
                                                                                                             2016).
Family Balaenidae:
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Fin whale.......................  Balaenoptera physalus..  Northeast Pacific......  E, D, Y             UND \5\ (UND, UND,            UND        0.6
                                                                                                             2013).
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Hawai'i................  -, -, N             11,278 (0.56, 7,265,          127      27.09
                                                                                                             2020).
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Mexico-North Pacific...  T, D, Y             N/A \6\ (N/A, N/A,            UND       0.57
                                                                                                             2006).
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Western North Pacific..  E, D, Y             1,084 \7\ (0.088,             3.4       5.82
                                                                                                             1,007, 2006).
    Minke whale.....................  Balaenoptera             AK.....................  -, -, N             N/A \8\ (N/A, N/A, N/         UND          0
                                       acutorostrata.                                                        A).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Eastern North Pacific    -, -, N             1,920 (N/A, 1,920,             19        1.3
                                                                Alaska Resident.                             2019).
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Eastern North Pacific    -, -, N             587 (N/A, 587, 2012)..        5.9        0.8
                                                                Gulf of Alaska,
                                                                Aleutian Islands and
                                                                Bering Sea Transient.
    Pacific white-sided dolphin.....  Lagenorhynchus           N Pacific..............  -, -, N             26,880 (N/A, N/A,             UND          0
                                       obliquidens.                                                          1990).
Family Monodontidae (white whales):
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Cook Inlet.............  E, D, Y             279 \9\ (0.061, 267,         0.53          0
                                                                                                             2018).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Dall's porpoise.................  Phocoenoides dalli.....  AK.....................  -, -, N             UND \10\ (UND, UND,           UND         37
                                                                                                             2015).
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Gulf of Alaska.........  -, -, Y             31,046 (0.21, N/A,            UND         72
                                                                                                             1998).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Order Carnivora--Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    CA sea lion.....................  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -, -, N             257,606 (N/A, 233,515,     14,011       >321
                                                                                                             2014).
    Steller wea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Western................  E, D, Y             49,837 \11\ (N/A,             299        267
                                                                                                             49,837, 2022).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):

[[Page 77844]]

 
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  Cook Inlet/Shelikof      -, -, N             28,411 (N/A, 26,907,          807        107
                                                                Strait.                                      2018).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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)).
\2\ ESA 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.
\4\ These 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.
\5\ 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. Based upon this estimate and the Nmin, the PBR value is likely negatively biased for the entire stock.
\6\ Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and, therefore, current estimates are considered unknown.
\7\ The 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.
\9\ 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.
\10\ 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.
\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 co-occur 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 low-frequency 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      7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins,   150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 toothed whales, beaked whales,
 bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true       275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
 Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true  50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea  60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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).


[[Page 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 
(Hemil[auml] 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, high-frequency, 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-mean-squared pressure received levels 
(RMS SPL) of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile 
driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-
explosive 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

[[Page 77846]]

of 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 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 non-impulsive). 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-technical-guidance.

                     Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).....  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)....  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
                                          LE,OW,24h: 203 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 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
  has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. 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 project-specific 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-hilcorp-alaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cook-inlet-alaska-0.

                                                Table 4--Literature Values of Measured Tug Source Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Vessel                                             Source level
                  Vessel                     length     Speed              Activity              @1 m (re: 1    Horsepower            Reference
                                              (m)      (knots)                                   [micro]Pa)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 77847]]

 
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 [mu]Pa 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 [mu]Pa at 1 m; the 25th percentile was 179.0 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m, and 5th percentile source levels were 184.9 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa 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 [micro]Pa 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 SPL<INF>RMS</INF> of 185 dB for three tugs at 50 
percent power implies each tug individually has a source level of 180.2 
dB SPL<INF>rms</INF> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    SSL
          Sound source           ---------------------------------------
                                          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- 184 dB at 10 m....  193 dB at 10 m.
 in, impact).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Pad[eacute] terms (see page 57 in 
Hilcorp's application, available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-hilcorp-alaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cook-inlet-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

[[Page 77848]]

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-hilcorp-alaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cook-inlet-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-hilcorp-alaska-llc-oil-and-gas-activities-cook-inlet-alaska-0).
    Detailed broadband sound TL modeling in dBSea used the source level 
of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of                     Transmission
                             Source                                 strikes per      Number of         loss
                                                                       pile        piles per day    coefficient
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conductor pipe pile, Day 1 (70 percent installation)............           6,100             0.7              15
Conductor pipe pile, Day 2 (30 percent installation)............  ..............             0.3  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Level A harassment isopleth (m)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Scenario                                                   High-
                                   Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Tug Scenario Level A                  17.2             9.7           178.9             9.1             0.9
 harassment Isopleth............
Combined Scenario Level A                   19.6            11.0           203.6            10.3             1.0
 harassment Isopleth............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Level A harassment isopleths (m)                             Level B
                      Sound source                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------   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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These zones are results from Hilcorp's modeling.
\2\ For 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Density
                       Species                           (individuals/
                                                            km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 77850]]

 
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 (km\2\); 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 km\2\, 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 
km\2\) 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 noise-producing 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\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Rig tow, 3 tugs         Rig positioning, 4 tugs         Conductor pile
                                     --------------------------------------------------------        installation
                                                                                             ----------------------------  Total year 1     Authorized
               Species                Ensonified    Calculated    Ensonified    Calculated                  Calculated    estimated take   take by Level
                                         area      take by Level     area      take by Level  Ensonified   take by Level    by Level B     B harassment
                                        (km\2\)    B harassment     (km\2\)    B harassment      area      B harassment     harassment
                                          \1\           \2\                         \3\         (km\2\)         \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

[[Page 77851]]

 
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 x density x 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 km\2\) x species density (table 9) x number of potential positioning attempts (2).
\4\ Level B harassment zone (7.89 km\2\) x species density (table 9) x 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 (Lomac-MacNair 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, vessel-based 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

[[Page 77852]]

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 
(Lomac-MacNair 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 white-sided 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Year 1                          Year 2
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Abundance      Total take       Take as a      Total take       Take as a
                  Species                               Stock                 (Nbest)      (Level A and    percentage of   (Level A and    percentage of
                                                                                              Level B          stock          Level B          stock
                                                                                            harassment)      abundance      harassment)      abundance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale............................  Hawaii (Hawaii DPS).........          11,278               3              <1               3              <1
                                            Mexico--North Pacific                \1\ N/A  ..............             N/A  ..............             N/A
                                             (Mexico DPS).
                                            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           1,920              10              <1              10              <1
                                             Resident.
                                            Eastern North Pacific Gulf               587  ..............              <1  ..............              <1
                                             of Alaska, Aleutian
                                             Islands, and Bering Sea
                                             Transient.
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

[[Page 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 pre-clearance monitoring period, tugging activities may 
commence. If a non-beluga 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 
post-completion of any tugging activity each day, and after each 
stoppage of 30 minutes or greater.
    During nighttime hours or low/no-light conditions, night-vision 
devices (NVDs) shown to be effective at detecting marine mammals in 
low-light conditions (e.g., Portable Visual Search-7 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-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. 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.

[[Page 77854]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Shutdown zone
                      Hearing group                             (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 post-completion of pile driving activity. Pre-start 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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
    <bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
    <bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> PSOs must be able to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols;
    <bullet> PSOs must have experience or training in the field 
identification of marine mammals, including the identification of 
behaviors;
    <bullet> PSOs must have sufficient training, orientation, or 
experience with the tugging operation to provide for personal safety 
during observations;
    <bullet> 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 in-water 
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
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
    <bullet> 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, down-the-hole), and (g) total 
number of strikes for each pile.
    <bullet> PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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)

[[Page 77856]]

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);
    <bullet> Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment 
zones, by species; and
    <bullet> 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 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecbcbec2a5b8bcc2a183828598839e85828bbe899c839e989fac82838d8dc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="376765197e6367197a58595e4358455e595065524758454344775958565619505841">[email protected]</span></a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f564b4f317b7e69766c5f71707e7e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="78312c28561c190e110b3816171919561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>) 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., population-
level 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

[[Page 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; 
P[eacute]rez-Jorge 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 low-level 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

[[Page 77858]]

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:
    <bullet> No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or 
authorized;
    <bullet> Take by Level A harassment is not anticipated or 
authorized for any species except harbor seal;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> The project area represents a very small portion of the 
available foraging area for all potentially impacted marine mammal 
species;
    <bullet> Take will only occur within middle Cook Inlet and Trading 
Bay--a limited area of any given species or stock's home range;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 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). 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

[[Page 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 April-September 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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback 
whales are based upon data collected more than

[[Page 77860]]

8 years ago and, therefore, current estimates are considered unknown 
(Young et al. 2023). The most recent minimum population estimates 
(N<INF>MIN</INF>) 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 N<INF>MIN</INF> 
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 N<INF>MIN</INF> of 2,241 
individuals and <1 percent of the stock assuming an N<INF>MIN</INF> 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

[[Page 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/incidental-take-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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>