9510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

[Docket No. 140912776–5025–01] 

RIN 0648–BE53 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Apache Alaska Corporation 

(Apache) for authorization to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to its proposed oil and gas 

exploration seismic survey program in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, between March 1, 

2015, and February 29, 2020. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue regulations and 

subsequent Letters of Authorization 

(LOAs) to Apache to incidentally harass 

marine mammals. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than March 25, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by 0648– 

BE53, by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to: 

www.regulations.gov, enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2014–0144 in the ‘‘Search’’ box, 

click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

• Fax: 301–713–0376, Attn: Sara 

Young. 

Comments regarding any aspect of the 

collection of information requirement 

contained in this proposed rule should 

be sent to NMFS via one of the means 

stated here and to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

NEOB–10202, Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Office, 

Washington, DC 20503, OIRA@

omb.eop.gov. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter N/ 

A in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

An electronic copy of the application, 

containing a list of references used in 

this document, and the Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) may be 

obtained by writing to the address 

specified above, telephoning the contact 

listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the 

internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents 

cited in this proposed rule may also be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours at the above address. To 

help NMFS process and review 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Young or Ben Laws, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment].’’ 

Summary of Request 

On July 11, 2014, NMFS received a 

complete application from Apache 

requesting authorization for the take of 

six marine mammal species incidental 

to an oil and gas exploration seismic 

program in Cook Inlet, AK, over the 

course of 5 years. The proposed activity 

would occur for approximately 8–9 

months annually over the course of a 5- 

year period between March 1, 2015 and 

February 29, 2020. In-water airguns will 

only be active for approximately 2–3 

hours during each of the slack tide 

periods. There are approximately four 

slack tide periods in a 24-hour period; 

therefore, airgun operations will be 

active during approximately 8–12 hours 

per day, if weather conditions allow. 

The following specific aspects of the 

proposed activities are likely to result in 

the take of marine mammals: Seismic 

airgun operations. Take, by Level B 

Harassment only, of individuals of six 

species or stocks of marine mammals is 

anticipated to result from the specified 

activity. 

This is the fourth request (but first 

request for 5-year regulations and 

annual LOAs) that NMFS has received 

from Apache for takes of marine 

mammals incidental to conducting a 

seismic survey program in Cook Inlet. 

On April 30, 2012, NMFS issued a 1- 

year Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to Apache for their 

first season of seismic acquisition in 

Cook Inlet (77 FR 27720). NMFS issued 

a second 1-year IHA to Apache in 

February 2013 (78 FR 12720, February 

25, 2013). However, no seismic 

operations occurred in 2013. Most 

recently, NMFS issued a third IHA to 

Apache on March 4, 2014 to conduct 3D 

seismic survey operations in Cook Inlet 

(79 FR 13626, March 11, 2014). The 

third IHA expires on December 31, 

2014. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9511 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Apache has acquired over 850,000 

acres of oil and gas leases in Cook Inlet 

since 2010 with the primary objective to 

explore for and develop oil and gas 

resources in Cook Inlet. Apache 

proposes to conduct oil and gas seismic 

surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska, in an area 

that encompasses approximately 5,684 

km2 (2,195 mi2) of intertidal and 

offshore areas. This area is slightly 

larger than that shown in Apache’s 

MMPA application and corresponds 

with the request contained in their 

Biological Assessment and Figure 1 in 

this document, which is also available 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental/

oilgas.htm#apache2020. Vessels will lay 

and retrieve nodal sensors on the sea 

floor in periods of low current, or, in the 

case of the intertidal area, during high 

tide over a 24-hour period. In deep 

water, a hull or pole mounted pinger 

system will be used to determine the 

exact location of the nodes. The two 

instruments used in this technique are 

a transceiver (operating at 33–55kHz 

with a maximum source level of 188 dB 

re 1 mPa at 1 meter) and a transponder 

(operating at 35–50kHz with a 

maximum source level of 188 dB re 1 

mPa at 1 meter). Apache proposes to use 

two synchronized vessels. Each source 

vessel will be equipped with 

compressors and 2,400 cubic inch (in3) 

airgun arrays. Additionally, one of the 

source vessels will be equipped with a 

440 in3 shallow water source array, 

which can be deployed at high tide in 

the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (6 

ft) of water. The two source vessels do 

not fire the airguns simultaneously; 

rather, each vessel fires a shot every 24 

seconds, leaving 12 seconds between 

shots. 

The operation will utilize two source 

vessels, three cable/nodal deployment 

and retrieval operations vessels, a 

mitigation/monitoring vessel, a node recharging and housing vessel, and two 

small vessels for personnel transport 

and node support in the extremely 

shallow waters in the intertidal area. 

Water depths for the proposed program 

will range from 0–128 m (0–420 ft). 

Seismic surveys are designed to 

collect bathymetric and sub-seafloor 

data that allow the evaluation of 

potential shallow faults, gas zones, and 

archeological features at prospective 

exploration drilling locations. In the 

spring of 2011, Apache conducted a 

seismic test program to evaluate the 

feasibility of using new nodal (no 

cables) technology seismic recording 

equipment for operations in Cook Inlet. 

This test program found and provided 

important input to assist in finalizing 

the design of the 3D seismic program in 

Cook Inlet (the nodal technology was 

determined to be feasible). Apache 

began seismic onshore acquisition on 

the west side of Cook Inlet in September 

2011 and offshore acquisition in May 

2012 under an IHA issued by NMFS for 

April 30, 2012 through April 30, 2013 

(77 FR 27720, May 11, 2012). Apache 

continued seismic data acquisition for 

approximately 3 months in spring and 

summer 2014 in compliance with an 

IHA issued on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 

13626, March 11, 2014). 

Dates and Duration 

Apache proposes to acquire offshore/ 

transition zone operations for 

approximately 8 to 9 months in offshore 

areas in open water periods from March 

1 through December 31 annually over 

the course of 5 years. During each 24- 

hour period, seismic support activities 

may be conducted throughout the entire 

period; however, in-water airguns will 

only be active for approximately 2–3 

hours during each of the slack tide 

periods. There are approximately four 

slack tide periods in a 24-hour period; 

therefore, airgun operations will be 

active during approximately 8–12 hours 

per day, if weather conditions allow. 

Two airgun source vessels will work 

concurrently on the spread, acquiring 

source lines approximately 12 km (7.5 

mi) in length. Apache anticipates that a 

crew can acquire approximately 6.2 km2

(2.4 mi2) per day, assuming a crew can 

work 8–12 hours per day. Thus, the 

actual survey duration each year will 

take approximately 160 days over the 

course of 8 to 9 months. The vessels will 

be mobilized out of Homer or 

Anchorage with resupply runs occurring 

multiple times per week out of Homer, 

Anchorage, or Nikiski. 

Specified Geographic Region 

Each phase of the Apache program 

would encounter land, intertidal 

transition zone, and marine 

environments in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

However, only the portions occurring in 

the intertidal zone and marine 

environments have the potential to take 

marine mammals. The land-based 

portion of the proposed program would 

not result in underwater sound levels 

that would rise to the level of a marine 

mammal take. 

The proposed location of Apache’s 

acquisition plan is depicted in Figure 1 

in this document. The total proposed 

seismic survey data acquisition 

locations encompass approximately 

5,684 km2 (2,195 mi2) of intertidal and 

offshore areas. This area is 

approximately 18% larger than the area 

contained in Apache’s MMPA 

application. The additional area 

proposed for seismic survey data 

acquisition considered in this proposed 

rule (and not originally noted in 

Apache’s MMPA application) is located 

in northern Cook Inlet near the Susitna 

Delta region. Apache would only 

operate in a portion of this entire area 

between March 1 and December 31 each 

year. There are numerous factors that 

influence the survey areas, including 

the geology of the Cook Inlet area, other 

permitting restrictions (i.e., commercial 

fishing, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game refuges), seismic imaging of leases 

held by other entities with whom 

Apache has agreements (e.g., data 

sharing), overlap of sources and 

receivers to obtain the necessary seismic 

imaging data, and general operational 

restrictions (ice, weather, environmental 

conditions, marine life activity, etc.). 

Water depths for the program will range 

from 0–128 m (0–420 ft). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Detailed Description of Activities 

(1) Recording System 

The recording system is an 

autonomous system ‘‘nodal’’ (i.e., no 

cables), made up of at least two types of 

nodes; one for the land and one for the 

intertidal and marine environment. For 

the land operator, a single-component 

sensor land node will be used (see 

Figure 3 in Apache’s application); the 

inter-tidal and marine zone operators 

will use a submersible multi-component 

system made up of three velocity 

sensors and a hydrophone (see Figure 4 

in application). These systems have the 

ability to record continuous data. Inline 

receiver intervals for the node systems 

will be 50 m (165 ft). The nodes are 

deployed in patches for the seismic 

source and deployed for up to 15 days. 

The deployment length is limited by 

battery length and data storage capacity. 

The geometry methodology that 

Apache will use to gather seismic data 

is called patch shooting. This type of 

seismic survey requires the use of 

multiple vessels for cable layout/

pickup, recording, and sourcing. 

Operations begin by laying node lines 

on the seafloor parallel to each other 

with a node line spacing of 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP23FE15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9513 

approximately 402 m (1,320 ft). 

Apache’s patch will have 6–8 node lines 

(receivers) that generally run 

perpendicular to the shoreline for 

transition zones and parallel to the 

shoreline for offshore areas. The node 

lines will be separated by either 402 or 

503 m (1,320 or 1,650 ft). Inline spacing 

between nodes will be 50 m (165 ft). 

The node vessels will lay the entire 

patch on the seafloor prior to the airgun 

activity. Individual vessels are capable 

of carrying up to 400 nodes. With three 

node vessels operating simultaneously, 

a patch can be laid down in a single 24- 

hour period, weather permitting. A 

sample transition zone patch is depicted 

in Figure 5 in Apache’s application. A 

sample offshore patch is depicted in 

Figure 6 in Apache’s application. 

As the patches are acquired, the node 

lines will be moved either side-to-side 

or inline to the next patch’s location. 

Figure 7 in Apache’s application depicts 

multiple side-to-side patches that are 

acquired individually but when seamed 

together at the processing phase, create 

continuous coverage along the coastline. 

(2) Sensor Positioning 

Transition Zone/Offshore 

Components: Once the nodes are in 

place on the seafloor, the exact position 

of each node is required. There are 

several techniques used to locate the 

nodes on the seafloor, depending on the 

depth of the water. In very shallow 

water, the node positions are either 

surveyed by a land surveyor when the 

tide is low, or the position is accepted 

based on the position at which the 

navigator has laid the unit. 

In deeper water, a technique known 

as Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) will be 

used. This technique uses a hull or pole 

mounted pinger to send a signal to a 

transponder which is attached to each 

node. The transponders are coded, and 

the crew knows which transponder goes 

with which node prior to the layout. 

The transponder’s response (once 

pinged) is added together with several 

other responses to create a suite of 

ranges and bearings between the pinger 

boat and the node. Those data are then 

calculated to precisely position the 

node. In good conditions, the nodes can 

be interrogated as they are laid out. It is 

also common for the nodes to be pinged 

after they have been laid out. The pinger 

that will be used is a Sonardyne 

Shallow Water Cable Positioning 

system. The two instruments used are a 

Scout USBL Transceiver that operates at 

a frequency of 33–55 kilohertz (kHz) at 

a max source level of 188 decibels 

referenced to one micro Pascal (dB re 1 

mPa) at 1 m; and a LR USBL 

Transponder that operates at a 

frequency of 35–50 kHz at a source level 

of 185 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m. 

Onshore/Intertidal Components: 

Onshore and intertidal locating of 

source and receivers will be 

accomplished with Differential Global 

Positioning System/roving units (DGPS/ 

RTK) equipped with telemetry radios 

which will be linked to a base station 

established on the M/V Arctic Wolf or 

similar vessel. Survey crews will have 

both helicopter and light tracked vehicle 

support. Offshore sound sources and 

receivers will be positioned with an 

integrated navigation system utilizing 

DGPS/RTK link to the land located base 

stations. The integrated navigation 

system will be capable of many features 

that are critical to efficient safe 

operations. The system will include a 

hazard display system that can be 

loaded with known obstructions or 

exclusion zones. Typically the vessel 

displays are also loaded with the dayto-day operational hazards, buoys, etc. 

This display gives a quick reference 

when a potential question regarding 

positioning or tracking arises. In the 

case of inclement weather, the hazard 

display can and has been used to vector 

vessels to safety. 

(3) Seismic Source 

Transition Zone/Offshore 

Components: Apache proposes to use 

two synchronized source vessels in 

time. The source vessels, M/V Peregrine 

Falcon and the M/V Arctic Wolf (or 

similar vessels), will be equipped with 

compressors and 2,400 in3 airgun arrays 

(1,200 in3, if feasible). The M/V 

Peregrine Falcon, or similar, will be 

equipped with a 440 in3 shallow water 

source, which it can deploy at high tide 

in the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m 

(6 ft) of water. Most of the airgun sound 

energy is contained at frequencies below 

approximately 500 Hz. The modeled 

broadband source level for the array was 

251 dB re 1uPa peak and 238 dB re 1 

mPa rms. Source lines are oriented 

perpendicular to the node lines and 

parallel to the beach (see red lines on 

Figure 5 in Apache’s application). The 

two source vessels will traverse source 

lines of the same patch using a shooting 

technique called ping/pong. The ping/

pong methodology will have the first 

source boat commence the source effort. 

As the first airgun pop is initiated, the 

second gun boat is sent a command and 

begins a countdown to pop its guns 12 

seconds later than the first vessel. The 

first source boat would then take its 

second pop 12 seconds after the second 

vessel has popped and so on. The 

vessels try to manage their speed so that 

they cover approximately 50 m (165 ft) 

between pops. The objective is to 

generate source positions for each of the 

two arrays close to a 50 m (165 ft) 

interval along each of the source lines 

in a patch. Vessel speeds range from 2– 

4 knots (2.3–4.6 miles/hour [mph]). The 

source effort will average 8–12 hours 

per day. 

Each source line is approximately 

12.9 km (8 mi) long. A single vessel is 

capable of acquiring a source line in 

approximately 1 hour. With two source 

vessels operating simultaneously, a 

patch of approximately 3,900 source 

points can be acquired in a single day 

assuming a 10–12 hour source effort. 

When the data from the patch of nodes 

have been acquired, the node vessels 

pick up the patch and roll it to the next 

location. The pickup effort takes 

approximately 18 hours. 

Onshore/Intertidal Components: The 

onshore source effort will be shot holes. 

These holes are drilled every 50 m (165 

ft) along source lines which are 

orientated perpendicular to the receiver 

lines and parallel to the coast. To access 

the onshore drill sites, Apache would 

use a combination of helicopter portable 

and tracked vehicle drills. At each 

source location, Apache will drill to the 

prescribed hole depth of approximately 

10 m (35 ft) and load it with 4 kilograms 

(kg) (8.8 pounds [lbs]) of explosive 

(likely Orica OSX Pentolite Explosive). 

The hole will be capped with a ‘‘smart 

cap’’ that will make it impossible to 

detonate the explosive without the 

proper blaster. At the request of NMFS, 

Apache conducted sound source 

verification (SSV) of the onshore shot 

hole to determine if underwater 

received sound levels exceeded the 

NMFS thresholds for harassment. The 

results of the SSV confirmed received 

sound levels in the water are not 

expected to exceed NMFS’s MMPA 

harassment thresholds (see Appendix A 

of Apache’s application), therefore, 

onshore sources are not discussed 

further in this application. However, in 

the event that the planned charge depth 

of 10 m (33 ft) is unattainable due to 

loose sediments collapsing the bore 

hole, then an SSV will be conducted on 

the new land-based charge depths to 

determine if they are within NMFS 

thresholds. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

The marine mammal species under 

NMFS’s jurisdiction that could occur 

near operations in Cook Inlet include 

four cetacean species: beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), killer whale 

(Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), and gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus) and two 

pinniped species: harbor seal (Phoca 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

vitulina richardsi) and Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus). The marine 

mammal species that is likely to be 

encountered most widely (in space and 

time) throughout the period of the 

planned surveys is the harbor seal. 

While killer and gray whales and Steller 

sea lions have been sighted in upper 

Cook Inlet, their occurrence is 

considered rare in that portion of the 

Inlet. 

Of the six marine mammal species 

likely to occur in the proposed marine 

survey area, Cook Inlet beluga whales 

and one stock of Steller sea lions are 

listed as endangered under the ESA 

(Steller sea lions are divided into two 

distinct population segments (DPSs), an 

eastern and a western DPS; the relevant 

DPS in Cook Inlet is the western DPS). 

The eastern DPS was recently removed 

from the endangered species list (78 FR 

66139, November 4, 2013)). 

TABLE 1—TABLE OF STOCKS EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA

Species Stock 

ESA/

MMPA 

status; 1

Strategic 

(Y/N) 

Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most 

recent abundance survey) 2

Relative occurrence in Cook Inlet; 

season of occurrence. 

Gray whale ............ Eastern North Pacific ...................... -; N ....... 19,126 (0.071; 18,017; 2007) ......... Rare migratory visitor; late winter. 

Killer whale ........... Alaska Resident .............................. -;N ........ 2,347 (N/A; 2,084; 2009) ................ Occasionally sighted in Lowe Cook 

Inlet. 

Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island, Bering Sea Transient.-:N ........ 345 (N/A; 303; 2003).

Beluga whale ........ Cook Inlet ........................................ E/D;Y .... 312 (0.10; 280; 2012) ..................... Use upper Inlet in summer and 

lower in winter: annual. 

Harbor porpoise .... Gulf of Alaska ................................. -;Y ........ 31,046 (0.214; 25,987; 1998) ......... Widespread in the Inlet: annual 

(less in winter). 

Steller sea lion ...... Western DPS .................................. E/D;Y .... 79,300 (N/A; 45,659; 2012) ............ Primarily found in lower Inlet. 

Harbor seal ........... Alaska—Cook Inlet ......................... -;N ........ 22,900 (0.053; 21,896; 2006) ......... Frequently found in upper and 

lower inlet; annual (more in 

northern Inlet in summer). 

1Endangered Species Act (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 (see footnote 3) 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. 2 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of 

pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from 

knowledge of the specie’s (or similar species’) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these 

cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore. 

Pursuant to the ESA, critical habitat 

has been designated for Cook Inlet 

beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The 

proposed action falls within critical 

habitat designated in Cook Inlet for 

beluga whales but is not within critical 

habitat designated for Steller sea lions. 

On April 11, 2011, NMFS announced 

the two areas of beluga whale critical 

habitat (76 FR 20180) comprising 7,800 

km2 (3,013 mi2) of marine habitat. 

Designated beluga whale Critical Habitat 

Area 1 consists of 1,909 km2 of Cook 

Inlet, north of Three Mile Creek and 

Point Possession. Critical Habitat Area 1 

contains shallow tidal flats or mudflats 

and mouths of rivers that provide 

important areas for foraging, calving, 

molting, and escape from predators. 

High concentrations of beluga whales 

are often observed in these areas from 

spring through fall. Critical Habitat Area 

2 consists of 5,891 km2 located south of 

Critical Habitat Area 1 and includes 

nearshore areas along western Cook 

Inlet and Kachemak Bay. Critical 

Habitat Area 2 consists of known fall 

and winter foraging and transit habitat 

for beluga whales, as well as spring and 

summer habitat for smaller 

concentrations of beluga whales. 

Apache’s total proposed oil and gas 

exploration seismic operations area is 

5,684 km2, of which a smaller portion 

would be surveyed over an eight to nine 

month period annually. Approximately 

711 km2 of Apache’s proposed seismic 

survey area is in the designated beluga 

whale Critical Habitat Area 1 and 

approximately 4,200 km2 is in the 

designated beluga whale Critical Habitat 

Area 2. 

There are several species of 

mysticetes that have been observed 

infrequently in lower Cook Inlet, 

including minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata), humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), and fin 

whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Because 

of their infrequent occurrence in the 

location of seismic acquisition, they are 

not included in this proposed rule. Sea 

otters also occur in Cook Inlet. However, 

sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and are therefore 

not considered further in this proposed 

rule. 

Cetaceans 

1. Beluga Whales 

Despite the ESA listing and critical 

habitat designations already mentioned, 

Cook Inlet beluga whales have not made 

significant progress towards recovery. 

Data indicate that the Cook Inlet 

population of beluga whales (which was 

listed in 2008) has been decreasing at a 

rate of 0.6 percent annually between 

2002 and 2012 (Allen and Angliss, 

2014). One review of the status of the 

population indicated that there is an 

80% chance that the population will 

decline further (Hobbs and Shelden, 

2008). 

Cook Inlet beluga whales reside in 

Cook Inlet year-round although their 

distribution and density changes 

seasonally. Factors that are likely to 

influence beluga whale distribution 

within the inlet include prey 

availability, predation pressure, sea-ice 

cover and other environmental factors, 

reproduction, sex and age class, and 

human activities (Rugh et al., 2000; 

NMFS 2008). Seasonal movement and 

density patterns as well as site fidelity 

appear to be closely linked to prey 

availability, coinciding with seasonal 

salmon and eulachon concentrations 

(Moore et al., 2000). For example, 

during spring and summer, beluga 

whales are generally concentrated near 

the warmer waters of river mouths 

where prey availability is high and 

predator occurrence is low (Huntington 

2000; Moore et al., 2000). During the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9515 

winter (November to April), belugas 

disperse throughout the upper and midinlet areas, with animals found between 

Kalgin Island and Point Possession 

(Rugh et al., 2000). During these 

months, there are generally fewer 

observations of beluga whales in the 

Anchorage and Knik Arm area (NMML 

2004; Rugh et al., 2004). 

Beluga whales use several areas of the 

upper Cook Inlet for repeated summer 

and fall feeding. The primary hotspots 

for beluga feeding include the Big and 

Little Susitna rivers, Eagle Bay to 

Eklutna River, Ivan Slough, Theodore 

River, Lewis River, and Chickaloon 

River and Bay (NMFS, 2008). 

Availability of prey species appears to 

be the most influential environmental 

variable affecting Cook Inlet beluga 

whale distribution and relative 

abundance (Moore et al., 2000). The 

patterns and timing of eulachon and 

salmon runs have a strong influence on 

beluga whale feeding behavior and their 

seasonal movements (Nemeth et al., 

2007; NMFS, 2008). The presence of 

prey species may account for the 

seasonal changes in beluga group size 

and composition (Moore et al., 2000). 

Aerial and vessel-based monitoring 

conducted by Apache during the March 

2011 2D test program in Cook Inlet 

reported 33 beluga sightings. One of the 

sightings was of a large group (∼25 

individuals on March 27, 2011) of 

feeding/milling belugas near the mouth 

of the Drift River. If belugas are present 

during the late summer/early fall, they 

are more likely to occur in shallow areas 

near river mouths in upper Cook Inlet. 

For example, no beluga whales were 

sighted in Trading Bay during the SSV 

conducted in September 2011 because 

during that time of year they are more 

likely to be in the upper regions of Cook 

Inlet. 

2. Killer Whales 

In general, killer whales are rare in 

upper Cook Inlet. Transient killer 

whales are known to feed on beluga 

whales, and resident killer whales are 

known to feed on anadromous fish 

(Shelden et al., 2003). The availability 

of these prey species largely determines 

the likeliest times for killer whales to be 

in the area. Between 1993 and 2004, 23 

sightings of killer whales were reported 

in the lower Cook Inlet during aerial 

surveys by Rugh et al. (2005). Surveys 

conducted over a span of 20 years by 

Shelden et al. (2003) reported 11 

sightings in upper Cook Inlet between 

Turnagain Arm, Susitna Flats, and Knik 

Arm. No killer whales were spotted 

during surveys by Funk et al. (2005), 

Ireland et al. (2005), Brueggeman et al. 

(2007a, 2007b, 2008), or Prevel Ramos et 

al. (2006, 2008). Eleven killer whale 

strandings have been reported in 

Turnagain Arm, six in May 1991 and 

five in August 1993. NMFS aerial survey 

data spanning 13 years conducted in 

June each year have reported sightings 

ranging from 0 to 33 whales in a single 

year. Sightings data can be found in 

Table 5 of Apache’s application. 

Therefore, very few killer whales, if any, 

are expected to approach or be in the 

vicinity of the action area. 

3. Harbor Porpoise 

Previously estimated density for 

harbor porpoises in Cook Inlet is 7.2 per 

1,000 km2 (Dahlheim et al., 2000), 

suggesting that only a small number use 

Cook Inlet. Data from NMFS aerial 

surveys (Table 5 in Apache’s 

application) flown annually in June 

from 2000–2012 sighted anywhere from 

0 to 100 porpoises in a single season. 

The densities derived from this data 

range from 0 to 0.014 animals per km2. 

Harbor porpoise have been reported in 

lower Cook Inlet from Cape Douglas to 

the West Foreland, Kachemak Bay, and 

offshore (Rugh et al., 2005). Small 

numbers of harbor porpoises have been 

consistently reported in upper Cook 

Inlet between April and October, but 

more recent observations have recorded 

higher numbers (Prevel Ramos et al., 

2008). Prevel Ramos et al. (2008) 

reported 17 harbor porpoises from 

spring to fall 2006, while other studies 

reported 14 in the spring of 2007 

(Brueggeman et al. 2007) and 12 in the 

fall of 2007 (Brueggeman et al. 2008). 

During the spring and fall of 2007, 129 

harbor porpoises were reported between 

Granite Point and the Susitna River; 

however, the reason for the increase in 

numbers of harbor porpoise in the upper 

Cook Inlet remains unclear and the 

disparity between this result and past 

sightings suggests that it may be an 

anomaly. The spike in reported 

sightings occurred in July, which was 

followed by sightings of 79 harbor 

porpoises in August, 78 in September, 

and 59 in October 2007. It is important 

to note that the number of porpoises 

counted more than once was unknown, 

which suggests that the actual numbers 

are likely smaller than those reported. In 

2012, Apache marine mammal observers 

recorded 137 sightings of 190 estimated 

individuals; a similar count to the 2007 

spike previously observed. In addition, 

recent passive acoustic research in Cook 

Inlet by the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game and the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory have indicated that 

harbor porpoises occur in the area more 

frequently than previously thought, 

particularly in the West Foreland area in 

the spring (NMFS 2011); however 

overall numbers are still unknown at 

this time. 

4. Gray Whale 

Numbers of gray whales in Cook Inlet 

are small compared to the overall 

population (18,017 individuals). 

However, Apache marine mammal 

observers recorded nine sightings of 

nine individuals (including possible 

resights of the same animals) from MayJuly 2012. Of those sightings, seven 

were observed from project vessels, and 

two were observed from land-based 

observation stations. The eastern North 

Pacific gray whales observed in Cook 

Inlet are likely migrating to summer 

feeding grounds in the Bering, Chukchi, 

and Beaufort Seas, though a small 

number feed along the coast between 

Kodiak Island and northern California 

(Matkin, 2009; Carretta et al., 2014). 

NMFS aerial surveys flown annually in 

June have not sighted a gray whale 

during survey season since 2001. 

Occurrences in the seismic survey area 

(especially in the upper parts of the 

Inlet) are expected to be low. 

Pinnipeds 

Two species of pinnipeds may be 

encountered in Cook Inlet: Harbor seal 

and Steller sea lion. 

1. Harbor Seals 

Harbor seals inhabit the coastal and 

estuarine waters of Cook Inlet. 

Historically, harbor seals have been 

more abundant in lower Cook Inlet than 

in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 

2005a,b). Harbor seals are nonmigratory; their movements are 

associated with tides, weather, season, 

food availability, and reproduction. The 

major haulout sites for harbor seals are 

located in lower Cook Inlet, and their 

presence in the upper inlet coincides 

with seasonal runs of prey species. For 

example, harbor seals are commonly 

observed along the Susitna River and 

other tributaries along upper Cook Inlet 

during the eulachon and salmon 

migrations (NMFS, 2003). During aerial 

surveys of upper Cook Inlet in 2001, 

2002, and 2003, harbor seals were 

observed 24 to 96 km (15 to 60 mi) 

south-southwest of Anchorage at the 

Chickaloon, Little Susitna, Susitna, 

Ivan, McArthur, and Beluga Rivers 

(Rugh et al., 2005). NMFS aerial surveys 

flown in June have reported sightings 

ranging from 956 to 2037 harbor seals 

over the course of surveys from 2000 to 

2012. Apache aerial observers recorded 

approximately 900 harbor seals north of 

the Forelands in 2012 (Lomac-MacNair 

et al., 2013). Moreover, preliminary 

reports from Apache’s 2014 vessel, 

aerial, and land observations suggest 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

harbor seals may be more abundant 

north of the Forelands than previously 

understood. During the 2D test program 

in March 2011, two harbor seals were 

observed by vessel-based PSOs. On 

March 25, 2011, one harbor seal was 

observed approximately 400 m (0.2 mi) 

from the M/V Miss Diane. At the time 

of the observation, the vessel was 

operating the positioning pinger, and 

PSOs instructed the operator to 

implement a shut-down. The pinger was 

shut down for 30 minutes while PSOs 

monitored the area and re-started the 

device when the animal was not sighted 

again during the 30 minute site clearing 

protocol. No unusual behaviors were 

reported during the time the animal was 

observed. The second harbor seal was 

observed on March 26, 2011, by vesselbased PSO onboard the M/V 

Dreamcatcher approximately 4,260 m 

(2.6 mi) from the source vessel, which 

was operating the 10 in3 airgun at the 

time. NMFS and Apache do not 

anticipate encountering large haulouts 

of seals (the closest haulout site to the 

action area is located on Kalgin Island, 

which is approximately 22 km [14 mi] 

south of the McArthur River), but we do 

expect to see curious individual harbor 

seals; especially during large fish runs 

in the various rivers draining into Cook 

Inlet. 

Important harbor seal life functions, 

such as breeding and molting may occur 

within portions of Apache’s proposed 

survey area in June and August, but the 

co-occurrence is expected to be 

minimal. From November through 

January, harbor seals leave Cook Inlet to 

forage in Shelikof Strait (Boveng et al., 

2007). 

2. Steller Sea Lion 

Two separate stocks of Steller sea 

lions are recognized within U.S. waters: 

An eastern DPS, which includes 

animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska; 

and a western DPS, which includes 

animals west of Cape Suckling (NMFS, 

2008). Individuals in Cook Inlet are 

considered part of the western DPS, 

which is listed as endangered under the 

ESA. 

Regional variation in trends in Steller 

sea lion pup counts in 2000–2012 is 

similar to that of non-pup counts 

(Johnson and Fritz, 2014). Overall, there 

is strong evidence that pup counts in 

the western stock in Alaska increased 

(1.45 percent annually). Between 2004 

and 2008, Alaska western non-pup 

counts increased only 3%: Eastern Gulf 

of Alaska (Prince William Sound area) 

counts were higher and Kenai Peninsula 

through Kiska Island counts were stable, 

but western Aleutian counts continued 

to decline. Johnson and Fritz (2014) 

analyzed western Steller sea lion 

population trends in Alaska and noted 

that there was strong evidence that nonpup counts in the western stock in 

Alaska increased between 2000 and 

2012 (average rate of 1.67 percent 

annually). However, there continues to 

be considerable regional variability in 

recent trends across the range in Alaska, 

with strong evidence of a positive trend 

east of Samalga Pass and strong 

evidence of a decreasing trend to the 

west (Allen and Angliss, 2014). 

Steller sea lions primarily occur in 

lower, rather than upper Cook Inlet and 

are rarely sighted north of Nikiski on the 

Kenai Peninsula. NMFS aerial surveys 

conducted in June, primarily in lower 

Cook Inlet, have sighted 0 to 104 

Stellers during survey seasons ranging 

from 2000 to 2012. Haul-outs and 

rookeries are located near Cook Inlet at 

Gore Point, Elizabeth Island, Perl Island, 

and Chugach Island (NMFS, 2008). No 

Steller sea lion haul-outs or rookeries 

are located in the vicinity of the 

proposed seismic survey. Furthermore, 

no sightings of Steller sea lions were 

reported by Apache during the 2D test 

program in March 2011. During the 3D 

seismic survey, one Steller sea lion was 

observed from the M/V Dreamcatcher 

on August 18, 2012, during a period 

when the air guns were not active. 

Although Apache has requested takes of 

Steller sea lions, Steller sea lions would 

be rare in the action area during seismic 

survey operations. 

Apache’s application contains more 

information on the status, distribution, 

seasonal distribution, and abundance of 

each of the species under NMFS 

jurisdiction mentioned in this 

document. Please refer to the 

application for that information (see 

ADDRESSES). Additional information can 

also be found in the NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR). The Alaska 

2013 SAR is available on the Internet at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/

ak2013_final.pdf. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

(e.g., seismic airgun operations, vessel 

movement) of the specified activity, 

including mitigation, may impact 

marine mammals. The ‘‘Estimated Take 

by Incidental Harassment’’ section later 

in this document will include a 

quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include the 

analysis of how this specific activity 

will impact marine mammals and will 

consider the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, and the 

‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat’’ section to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of this 

activity on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and from 

that on the affected marine mammal 

populations or stocks. 

Operating active acoustic sources, 

such as airgun arrays, has the potential 

for adverse effects on marine mammals. 

The majority of anticipated impacts 

would be from the use of acoustic 

sources. 

Acoustic Impacts 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms have been 

derived using auditory evoked 

potentials, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that animals are less sensitive to sounds 

at the outer edge of their functional 

range and most sensitive to sounds of 

frequencies within a smaller range 

somewhere in the middle of their 

functional hearing range): 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): Functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, 

and four species of cephalorhynchids): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; 

• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 

kHz; and 

• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 100 Hz and 40 

kHz. 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, six marine mammal species 

(four cetacean and two pinniped 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9517 

species) are likely to occur in the 

proposed seismic survey area. Of the 

four cetacean species likely to occur in 

Apache’s proposed project area, one is 

classified as a low-frequency cetacean 

(gray whale), two are classified as midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and 

killer whales), and one is classified as 

a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor 

porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). Of the 

two pinniped species likely to occur in 

Apache’s proposed project area, one is 

classified as a phocid (i.e., harbor seal), 

and one is classified as an otariid (i.e., 

Steller sea lion). A species’s functional 

hearing group is a consideration when 

we analyze the effects of exposure to 

sound on marine mammals. 

1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on 

Marine Mammals 

The effects of sounds from airgun 

pulses might include one or more of the 

following: Tolerance, masking of natural 

sounds, behavioral disturbance, and 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment or non-auditory effects 

(Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in 

previous NMFS documents, the effects 

of noise on marine mammals are highly 

variable, often depending on species 

and contextual factors (based on 

Richardson et al., 1995). 

Tolerance: Numerous studies have 

shown that pulsed sounds from air guns 

are often readily detectable in the water 

at distances of many kilometers. 

Numerous studies have also shown that 

marine mammals at distances more than 

a few kilometers from operating survey 

vessels often show no apparent 

response. That is often true even in 

cases when the pulsed sounds must be 

readily audible to the animals based on 

measured received levels and the 

hearing sensitivity of that mammal 

group. In general, pinnipeds and small 

odontocetes (toothed whales) seem to be 

more tolerant of exposure to air gun 

pulses than baleen whales. Although 

various toothed whales, and (less 

frequently) pinnipeds have been shown 

to react behaviorally to airgun pulses 

under some conditions, at other times, 

mammals of both types have shown no 

overt reactions. Weir (2008) observed 

marine mammal responses to seismic 

pulses from a 24 airgun array firing a 

total volume of either 5,085 in3 or 3,147 

in3 in Angolan waters between August 

2004 and May 2005. Weir recorded a 

total of 207 sightings of humpback 

whales (n = 66), sperm whales (n = 124), 

and Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) 

and reported that there were no 

significant differences in encounter 

rates (sightings/hr) for humpback and 

sperm whales according to the airgun 

array’s operational status (i.e., active 

versus silent). 

Behavioral Disturbance: Marine 

mammals may behaviorally react to 

sound when exposed to anthropogenic 

noise. These behavioral reactions are 

often shown as: Changing durations of 

surfacing and dives, number of blows 

per surfacing, or moving direction and/ 

or speed; reduced/increased vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where noise sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haulouts or 

rookeries). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification have the potential to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. Examples of behavioral 

modifications that could impact growth, 

survival or reproduction include: 

• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing/ 

swimming patterns that lead to 

stranding (such as those associated with 

beaked whale strandings related to 

exposure to military mid-frequency 

tactical sonar); 

• Habitat abandonment (temporary or 

permanent) due to loss of desirable 

acoustic environment; and 

• Disruption of feeding or social 

interaction resulting in significant 

energetic costs, inhibited breeding, or 

cow-calf separation. 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic noise depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

noise sources and their paths) and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is also 

difficult to predict (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Toothed whales. Few systematic data 

are available describing reactions of 

toothed whales to noise pulses. 

However, systematic work on sperm 

whales is underway (Tyack et al., 2003), 

and there is an increasing amount of 

information about responses of various 

odontocetes to seismic surveys based on 

monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; 

Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and 

Miller, 2005). 

Seismic operators and marine 

mammal observers sometimes see 

dolphins and other small toothed 

whales near operating airgun arrays, 

but, in general, there seems to be a 

tendency for most delphinids to show 

some limited avoidance of seismic 

vessels operating large airgun systems. 

However, some dolphins seem to be 

attracted to the seismic vessel and 

floats, and some ride the bow wave of 

the seismic vessel even when large 

arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, 

there have been indications that small 

toothed whales sometimes move away 

or maintain a somewhat greater distance 

from the vessel when a large array of 

airguns is operating than when it is 

silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; 

Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 

2003). The beluga may be a species that 

(at least in certain geographic areas) 

shows long-distance avoidance of 

seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during 

seismic operations in the southeastern 

Beaufort Sea recorded much lower 

sighting rates of beluga whales within 

10–20 km (6.2–12.4 mi) of an active 

seismic vessel. These results were 

consistent with the low number of 

beluga sightings reported by observers 

aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting 

that some belugas might have been 

avoiding the seismic operations at 

distances of 10–20 km (6.2–12.4 mi) 

(Miller et al., 2005). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of 

more relevance in this project) beluga 

whales exhibit changes in behavior 

when exposed to strong pulsed sounds 

similar in duration to those typically 

used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 

2002, 2005). However, the animals 

tolerated high received levels of sound 

(pk–pk level >200 dB re 1 mPa) before 

exhibiting aversive behaviors. 

Observers stationed on seismic 

vessels operating off the United 

Kingdom from 1997–2000 have 

provided data on the occurrence and 

behavior of various toothed whales 

exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; 

Gordon et al., 2004). Killer whales were 

found to be significantly farther from 

large airgun arrays during periods of 

shooting compared with periods of no 

shooting. The displacement of the 

median distance from the array was 

approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) or more. 

Killer whales also appear to be more 

tolerant of seismic shooting in deeper 

water. 

Reactions of toothed whales to large 

arrays of airguns are variable and, at 

least for delphinids, seem to be confined 

to a smaller radius than has been 

observed for mysticetes. However, based 

on the limited existing evidence, 

belugas should not be grouped with 

delphinids in the ‘‘less responsive’’ 

category. 

Pinnipeds. Pinnipeds are not likely to 

show a strong avoidance reaction to the 

airgun sources proposed for use. Visual 

monitoring from seismic vessels has 

shown only slight (if any) avoidance of 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if 

any) changes in behavior. Monitoring 

work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 

1996–2001 provided considerable 

information regarding the behavior of 

Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic 

pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and 

Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects 

usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 

airguns with total volumes of 560 to 

1,500 in3. The combined results suggest 

that some seals avoid the immediate 

area around seismic vessels. In most 

survey years, ringed seal sightings 

tended to be farther away from the 

seismic vessel when the airguns were 

operating than when they were not 

(Moulton and Lawson, 2002). However, 

these avoidance movements were 

relatively small, on the order of 100 m 

(328 ft) to a few hundreds of meters, and 

many seals remained within 100–200 m 

(328–656 ft) of the trackline as the 

operating airgun array passed by. Seal 

sighting rates at the water surface were 

lower during airgun array operations 

than during no-airgun periods in each 

survey year except 1997. Similarly, seals 

are often very tolerant of pulsed sounds 

from seal-scaring devices (Mate and 

Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and Curry, 1994; 

Richardson et al., 1995a). However, 

initial telemetry work suggests that 

avoidance and other behavioral 

reactions by two other species of seals 

to small airgun sources may at times be 

stronger than evident to date from visual 

studies of pinniped reactions to airguns 

(Thompson et al., 1998). Even if 

reactions of the species occurring in the 

present study area are as strong as those 

evident in the telemetry study, reactions 

are expected to be confined to relatively 

small distances and durations, with no 

long-term effects on pinniped 

individuals or populations. 

Masking: Masking is the obscuring of 

sounds of interest by other sounds, often 

at similar frequencies. Marine mammals 

use acoustic signals for a variety of 

purposes, which differ among species, 

but include communication between 

individuals, navigation, foraging, 

reproduction, avoiding predators, and 

learning about their environment (Erbe 

and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). 

Masking, or auditory interference, 

generally occurs when sounds in the 

environment are louder than, and of a 

similar frequency to, auditory signals an 

animal is trying to receive. Masking is 

a phenomenon that affects animals 

trying to receive acoustic information 

about their environment, including 

sounds from other members of their 

species, predators, prey, and sounds 

that allow them to orient in their 

environment. Masking these acoustic 

signals can disturb the behavior of 

individual animals, groups of animals, 

or entire populations. 

Masking occurs when anthropogenic 

sounds and signals (that the animal 

utilizes) overlap at both spectral and 

temporal scales. For the airgun sound 

generated from the proposed seismic 

surveys, sound will consist of low 

frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with 

extremely short durations (less than one 

second). Lower frequency man-made 

sounds are more likely to affect 

detection of communication calls and 

other potentially important natural 

sounds such as surf and prey noise. 

There is little concern regarding 

masking near the sound source due to 

the brief duration of these pulses and 

relatively longer silence between air gun 

shots (approximately 12 seconds). 

However, at long distances (over tens of 

kilometers away), due to multipath 

propagation and reverberation, the 

durations of airgun pulses can be 

‘‘stretched’’ to seconds with long decays 

(Madsen et al., 2006), although the 

intensity of the sound is greatly 

reduced. 

This could affect communication 

signals used by low frequency 

mysticetes when they occur near the 

noise band and thus reduce the 

communication space of animals (e.g., 

Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased 

stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt 

et al., 2009); however, no baleen whales 

are expected to occur within the 

proposed action area. Marine mammals 

are thought to be able to compensate for 

masking by adjusting their acoustic 

behavior by shifting call frequencies, 

and/or increasing call volume and 

vocalization rates. For example, blue 

whales are found to increase call rates 

when exposed to seismic survey noise 

in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio 

and Clark, 2010). The North Atlantic 

right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

exposed to high shipping noise increase 

call frequency (Parks et al., 2007), while 

some humpback whales respond to lowfrequency active sonar playbacks by 

increasing song length (Miller et al., 

2000). Additionally, beluga whales have 

been known to change their 

vocalizations in the presence of high 

background noise possibly to avoid 

masking calls (Au et al., 1985; Lesage et 

al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). 

Although some degree of masking is 

inevitable when high levels of manmade 

broadband sounds are introduced into 

the sea, marine mammals have evolved 

systems and behavior that function to 

reduce the impacts of masking. 

Structured signals, such as the 

echolocation click sequences of small 

toothed whales, may be readily detected 

even in the presence of strong 

background noise because their 

frequency content and temporal features 

usually differ strongly from those of the 

background noise (Au and Moore, 1988, 

1990). The components of background 

noise that are similar in frequency to the 

sound signal in question primarily 

determine the degree of masking of that 

signal. 

Redundancy and context can also 

facilitate detection of weak signals. 

These phenomena may help marine 

mammals detect weak sounds in the 

presence of natural or manmade noise. 

Most masking studies in marine 

mammals present the test signal and the 

masking noise from the same direction. 

The sound localization abilities of 

marine mammals suggest that, if signal 

and noise come from different 

directions, masking would not be as 

severe as the usual types of masking 

studies might suggest (Richardson et al., 

1995). The dominant background noise 

may be highly directional if it comes 

from a particular anthropogenic source 

such as a ship or industrial site. 

Directional hearing may significantly 

reduce the masking effects of these 

sounds by improving the effective 

signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of 

higher frequency hearing by the 

bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and 

killer whale, empirical evidence 

confirms that masking depends strongly 

on the relative directions of arrival of 

sound signals and the masking noise 

(Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; 

Bain et al., 1993; Bain and Dahlheim, 

1994). Toothed whales, and probably 

other marine mammals as well, have 

additional capabilities besides 

directional hearing that can facilitate 

detection of sounds in the presence of 

background noise. There is evidence 

that some toothed whales can shift the 

dominant frequencies of their 

echolocation signals from a frequency 

range with a lot of ambient noise toward 

frequencies with less noise (Au et al., 

1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; 

Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko 

and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A 

few marine mammal species are known 

to increase the source levels or alter the 

frequency of their calls in the presence 

of elevated sound levels (Dahlheim, 

1987; Au, 1993; Lesage et al., 1993, 

1999; Terhune, 1999; Foote et al., 2004; 

Parks et al., 2007, 2009; Di Iorio and 

Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). 

These data demonstrating adaptations 

for reduced masking pertain mainly to 

the very high frequency echolocation 

signals of toothed whales. There is less 

information about the existence of 

corresponding mechanisms at moderate 

or low frequencies or in other types of 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9519 

marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva 

et al. (1980) found that, for the 

bottlenose dolphin, the angular 

separation between a sound source and 

a masking noise source had little effect 

on the degree of masking when the 

sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast 

to the pronounced effect at higher 

frequencies. Directional hearing has 

been demonstrated at frequencies as low 

as 0.5–2 kHz in several marine 

mammals, including killer whales 

(Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability 

may be useful in reducing masking at 

these frequencies. In summary, high 

levels of sound generated by 

anthropogenic activities may act to 

mask the detection of weaker 

biologically important sounds by some 

marine mammals. This masking may be 

more prominent for lower frequencies. 

For higher frequencies, such as that 

used in echolocation by toothed whales, 

several mechanisms are available that 

may allow them to reduce the effects of 

such masking. 

Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of 

hearing)—When animals exhibit 

reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds 

must be louder for an animal to detect 

them) following exposure to an intense 

sound or sound for long duration, it is 

referred to as a noise-induced threshold 

shift (TS). An animal can experience 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) or 

permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS 

can last from minutes or hours to days 

(i.e., there is complete recovery), can 

occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., 

an animal might only have a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity between the 

frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 

be of varying amounts (for example, an 

animal’s hearing sensitivity might be 

reduced initially by only 6 dB or 

reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, 

but some recovery is possible. PTS can 

also occur in a specific frequency range 

and amount as mentioned above for 

TTS. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory TS: Effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all can 

affect the amount of associated TS and 

the frequency range in which it occurs. 

As amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. For intermittent sounds, 

less TS could occur than compared to a 

continuous exposure with the same 

energy (some recovery could occur 

between intermittent exposures 

depending on the duty cycle between 

sounds) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, 

1997). For example, one short but loud 

(higher SPL) sound exposure may 

induce the same impairment as one 

longer but softer sound, which in turn 

may cause more impairment than a 

series of several intermittent softer 

sounds with the same total energy 

(Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS 

is temporary, prolonged exposure to 

sounds strong enough to elicit TTS, or 

shorter-term exposure to sound levels 

well above the TTS threshold, can cause 

PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals 

(Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of 

the seismic survey, animals are not 

expected to be exposed to levels high 

enough or durations long enough to 

result in PTS. 

PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable 

damage to the inner or outer cochlear 

hair cells may cause PTS; however, 

other mechanisms are also involved, 

such as exceeding the elastic limits of 

certain tissues and membranes in the 

middle and inner ears and resultant 

changes in the chemical composition of 

the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Although the published body of 

scientific literature contains numerous 

theoretical studies and discussion 

papers on hearing impairments that can 

occur with exposure to a loud sound, 

only a few studies provide empirical 

information on the levels at which 

noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity 

occurs in nonhuman animals. For 

marine mammals, published data are 

limited to the captive bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and 

Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et 

al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, 

2010a, 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 

2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 

2009a, 2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 

2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt 

et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 

2004). For pinnipeds in water, data are 

limited to measurements of TTS in 

harbor seals, an elephant seal, and 

California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 

2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b). 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that occurs during a 

time where ambient noise is lower and 

there are not as many competing sounds 

present. Alternatively, a larger amount 

and longer duration of TTS sustained 

during time when communication is 

critical for successful mother/calf 

interactions could have more serious 

impacts. Also, depending on the degree 

and frequency range, the effects of PTS 

on an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious because it is a permanent 

condition. Of note, reduced hearing 

sensitivity as a simple function of aging 

has been observed in marine mammals, 

as well as humans and other taxa 

(Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer 

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 

Given the higher level of sound 

necessary to cause PTS as compared 

with TTS, it is considerably less likely 

that PTS would occur during the 

proposed seismic surveys in Cook Inlet. 

Cetaceans generally avoid the 

immediate area around operating 

seismic vessels, as do some other 

marine mammals. Some pinnipeds 

show avoidance reactions to airguns, 

but their avoidance reactions are 

generally not as strong or consistent as 

those of cetaceans, and occasionally 

they seem to be attracted to operating 

seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010). 

Non-auditory Physical Effects: Nonauditory physical effects might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater pulsed sound. Possible 

types of non-auditory physiological 

effects or injuries that theoretically 

might occur in mammals close to a 

strong sound source include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

and other types of organ or tissue 

damage. Some marine mammal species 

(i.e., beaked whales) may be especially 

susceptible to injury and/or stranding 

when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; 

Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 

nervous system perceives a threat, it 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

mounts a biological response or defense 

that consists of a combination of the 

four general biological defense 

responses: behavioral responses; 

autonomic nervous system responses; 

neuroendocrine responses; or immune 

responses. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response, 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effects on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine or 

sympathetic nervous systems; the 

system that has received the most study 

has been the hypothalmus-pituitaryadrenal system (also known as the HPA 

axis in mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and 

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuroendocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered 

metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 

reduced immune competence (Blecha, 

2000), and behavioral disturbance. 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, 

corticosterone, and aldosterone in 

marine mammals; see Romano et al., 

2004) have been equated with stress for 

many years. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that can be 

quickly replenished once the stress is 

alleviated. In such circumstances, the 

cost of the stress response would not 

pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. 

However, when an animal does not have 

sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the 

energetic costs of a stress response, 

energy resources must be diverted from 

other biotic functions, which impair 

those functions that experience the 

diversion. For example, when mounting 

a stress response diverts energy away 

from growth in young animals, those 

animals may experience stunted growth. 

When mounting a stress response 

diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s 

reproductive success and fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or 

‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 

will last until the animal replenishes its 

biotic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. Note that these 

examples involved a long-term (days or 

weeks) stress response due to exposure 

to stimuli. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiment; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see, 

Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; 

Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Although no information has 

been collected on the physiological 

responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic sound exposure, studies 

of other marine animals and terrestrial 

animals would lead us to expect some 

marine mammals to experience 

physiological stress responses and, 

perhaps, physiological responses that 

would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon 

exposure to anthropogenic sounds. 

For example, Jansen (1998) reported 

on the relationship between acoustic 

exposures and physiological responses 

that are indicative of stress responses in 

humans (e.g., elevated respiration and 

increased heart rates). Jones (1998) 

reported on reductions in human 

performance when faced with acute, 

repetitive exposures to acoustic 

disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noiseinduced physiological transient stress 

responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., 

goldfish) that accompanied short- and 

long-term hearing losses. Welch and 

Welch (1970) reported physiological 

and behavioral stress responses that 

accompanied damage to the inner ears 

of fish and several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

effects of sensory impairment (TTS, 

PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine 

mammals remains limited, we assume 

that reducing a marine mammal’s ability 

to gather information about its 

environment and communicate with 

other members of its species would 

induce stress, based on data that 

terrestrial animals exhibit those 

responses under similar conditions 

(NRC, 2003) and because marine 

mammals use hearing as their primary 

sensory mechanism. Therefore, we 

assume that acoustic exposures 

sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS 

would be accompanied by physiological 

stress responses. However, marine 

mammals also might experience stress 

responses at received levels lower than 

those necessary to trigger onset TTS. 

Based on empirical studies of the time 

required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also 

assumes that stress responses could 

persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) 

and direct noise-induced bubble 

formations (Crum et al., 2005) are 

implausible in the case of exposure to 

an impulsive broadband source like an 

airgun array. If seismic surveys disrupt 

diving patterns of deep-diving species, 

this might result in bubble formation 

and a form of the bends, as speculated 

to occur in beaked whales exposed to 

sonar. However, there is no specific 

evidence of this upon exposure to 

airgun pulses. Additionally, no beaked 

whale species occur in the proposed 

seismic survey area. 

In general, very little is known about 

the potential for strong, anthropogenic 

underwater sounds to cause nonauditory physical effects in marine 

mammals. Such effects, if they occur at 

all, would presumably be limited to 

short distances and to activities that 

extend over a prolonged period. The 

available data do not allow 

identification of a specific exposure 

level above which non-auditory effects 

can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) 

or any meaningful quantitative 

predictions of the numbers (if any) of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

in those ways. There is no definitive 

evidence that any of these effects occur 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9521 

even for marine mammals in close 

proximity to large arrays of airguns. In 

addition, marine mammals that show 

behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, 

including belugas and some pinnipeds, 

are especially unlikely to incur nonauditory impairment or other physical 

effects. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

such effects would occur during 

Apache’s proposed surveys given the 

brief duration of exposure and the 

planned monitoring and mitigation 

measures described later in this 

document. 

Stranding and Mortality: Marine 

mammals close to underwater 

detonations of high explosive can be 

killed or severely injured, and the 

auditory organs are especially 

susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. 1993; 

Ketten 1995). Airgun pulses are less 

energetic and their peak amplitudes 

have slower rise times. To date, there is 

no evidence that serious injury, death, 

or stranding by marine mammals can 

occur from exposure to air gun pulses, 

even in the case of large air gun arrays. 

However, in numerous past IHA 

notices for seismic surveys, commenters 

have referenced two stranding events 

allegedly associated with seismic 

activities, one off Baja California and a 

second off Brazil. NMFS has addressed 

this concern several times, including in 

the Federal Register notice announcing 

the IHA for Apache’s first seismic 

survey in 2012. Without new 

information, NMFS does not believe 

that this issue warrants further 

discussion. For information relevant to 

strandings of marine mammals, readers 

are encouraged to review NMFS’s 

response to comments on this matter 

found in 69 FR 74905 (December 14, 

2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 

FR 50027 (August 24, 2006), 71 FR 

49418 (August 23, 2006), and 77 FR 

27720 (May 11, 2012). 

It should be noted that strandings 

related to sound exposure have not been 

recorded for marine mammal species in 

Cook Inlet. Beluga whale strandings in 

Cook Inlet are not uncommon; however, 

these events often coincide with 

extreme tidal fluctuations (‘‘spring 

tides’’) or killer whale sightings 

(Shelden et al., 2003). For example, in 

August 2012, a group of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales stranded in the mud flats 

of Turnagain Arm during low tide and 

were able to swim free with the flood 

tide. No strandings or marine mammals 

in distress were observed during the 2D 

test survey conducted by Apache in 

March 2011, and none were reported by 

Cook Inlet inhabitants. Furthermore, no 

strandings were reported during seismic 

survey operations conducted under the 

April 2012 IHA. As a result, NMFS does 

not expect any marine mammals will 

incur serious injury or mortality in Cook 

Inlet or strand as a result of the 

proposed seismic survey. 

2. Potential Effects From Pingers on 

Marine Mammals 

Active acoustic sources other than the 

airguns have been proposed for 

Apache’s 5-year oil and gas exploration 

seismic survey program in Cook Inlet. 

The specifications for the pingers 

(source levels and frequency ranges) 

were provided earlier in this document. 

In general, pingers are known to cause 

behavioral disturbance and are 

commonly used to deter marine 

mammals from commercial fishing gear 

or fish farms. Due to the potential to 

change marine mammal behavior, shut 

downs described for airguns will also be 

applied to pinger use. 

3. Potential Effects From Aircraft Noise 

on Marine Mammals 

Apache plans to utilize aircraft to 

conduct aerial surveys near river 

mouths in order to identify locations or 

congregations of beluga whales and 

other marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of operations. The 

aircraft will not be used every day but 

will be used for surveys near river 

mouths. Aerial surveys will fly at an 

altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) when 

practicable and weather conditions 

permit. In the event of a marine 

mammal sighting, aircraft will try to 

maintain a radial distance of 457 m 

(1,500 ft) from the marine mammal(s). 

Aircraft will avoid approaching marine 

mammals from head-on, flying over or 

passing the shadow of the aircraft over 

the marine mammals. 

Studies on the reactions of cetaceans 

to aircraft show little negative response 

(Richardson et al., 1995). In general, 

reactions range from sudden dives and 

turns and are typically found to 

decrease if the animals are engaged in 

feeding or social behavior. Whales with 

calves or in confined waters may show 

more of a response. Generally there has 

been little or no evidence of marine 

mammals responding to aircraft 

overflights when altitudes are at or 

above 305 m (1,000 ft), based on three 

decades of flying experience in the 

Arctic (NMFS, unpublished data). Based 

on long-term studies that have been 

conducted on beluga whales in Cook 

Inlet since 1993, NMFS expect that 

there will be no effects of this activity 

on beluga whales or other cetaceans. No 

change in beluga swim directions or 

other noticeable reactions have been 

observed during the Cook Inlet aerial 

surveys flown from 183 to 244 m (600 

to 800 ft) (e.g., Rugh et al., 2000). By 

applying the operational requirements 

discussed above, sound levels 

underwater are not expected to rise to 

the level of take. 

The majority of observations of 

pinnipeds reacting to aircraft noise are 

associated with animals hauled out on 

land or ice. There are few data 

describing the reactions of pinnipeds in 

water to aircraft (Richardson et al., 

1995). In the presence of aircraft, 

pinnipeds hauled out for pupping or 

molting generally became alert and then 

rushed or slipped (when on ice) into the 

water. Stampedes often result from this 

response and may increase pup 

mortality due to crushing or an increase 

rate of pup abandonment. The greatest 

reactions from hauled out pinnipeds 

were observed when low flying aircraft 

passed directly above the animal(s) 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Although 

noise associated with aircraft activity 

could cause hauled out pinnipeds to 

rush into the water, there are no known 

haul out sites in the vicinity of the 

survey site. Therefore, the operation of 

aircraft during the seismic survey is not 

expected to result in the harassment of 

pinnipeds. To minimize the noise 

generated by aircraft, Apache will 

follow NMFS’s Marine Mammal 

Viewing Guidelines and Regulations 

found on the Internet at: http://

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm. 

Vessel Impacts 

Vessel activity and noise associated 

with vessel activity will temporarily 

increase in the action area during 

Apache’s seismic survey as a result of 

the operation of nine vessels. To 

minimize the effects of vessels and 

noise associated with vessel activity, 

Apache will follow NMFS’s Marine 

Mammal Viewing Guidelines and 

Regulations and will alter heading or 

speed if a marine mammal gets too close 

to a vessel. In addition, vessels will be 

operating at slow speed (2–4 knots) 

when conducting surveys and in a 

purposeful manner to and from work 

sites in as direct a route as possible. 

Marine mammal monitoring observers 

and passive acoustic devices will alert 

vessel captains as animals are detected 

to ensure safe and effective measures are 

applied to avoid coming into direct 

contact with marine mammals. 

Therefore, NMFS neither anticipates nor 

authorizes takes of marine mammals 

from ship strikes. 

Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, 

killer whales, and harbor porpoises, 

often show tolerance to vessel activity; 

however, they may react at long 

distances if they are confined by ice, 

shallow water, or were previously 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

harassed by vessels (Richardson et al., 

1995). Beluga whale response to vessel 

noise varies greatly from tolerance to 

extreme sensitivity depending on the 

activity of the whale and previous 

experience with vessels (Richardson et 

al., 1995). Reactions to vessels depend 

on whale activities and experience, 

habitat, boat type, and boat behavior 

(Richardson et al., 1995) and may 

include behavioral responses, such as 

altered headings or avoidance (Blane 

and Jaakson, 1994; Erbe and Farmer, 

2000); fast swimming; changes in 

vocalizations (Lesage et al., 1999; 

Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in 

dive, surfacing, and respiration patterns. 

There are few data published on 

pinniped responses to vessel activity, 

and most of the information is anecdotal 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Generally, sea 

lions in water show tolerance to close 

and frequently approaching vessels and 

sometimes show interest in fishing 

vessels. They are less tolerant when 

hauled out on land; however, they 

rarely react unless the vessel approaches 

within 100–200 m (330–660 ft; reviewed 

in Richardson et al., 1995). 

Entanglement 

Although some of Apache’s 

equipment contains cables or lines, the 

risk of entanglement is extremely 

remote. Additionally, mortality from 

entanglement is not anticipated. The 

material used by Apache and the 

amount of slack is not anticipated to 

allow for marine mammal 

entanglements. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat and other 

marine species are associated with 

elevated sound levels produced by 

airguns and other active acoustic 

sources. However, other potential 

impacts to the surrounding habitat from 

physical disturbance are also possible. 

This section describes the potential 

impacts to marine mammal habitat from 

the specified activity. Because the 

marine mammals in the area feed on 

fish and/or invertebrates there is also 

information on the species typically 

preyed upon by the marine mammals in 

the area. As noted earlier, upper Cook 

Inlet is an important feeding and calving 

area for the Cook Inlet beluga whale, 

and critical habitat has been designated 

for this species in the proposed seismic 

survey area. 

Common Marine Mammal Prey in the 

Project Area 

Fish are the primary prey species for 

marine mammals in upper Cook Inlet. 

Beluga whales feed on a variety of fish, 

shrimp, squid, and octopus (Burns and 

Seaman, 1986). Common prey species in 

Knik Arm include salmon, eulachon 

and cod. Harbor seals feed on fish such 

as pollock, cod, capelin, eulachon, 

Pacific herring, and salmon, as well as 

a variety of benthic species, including 

crabs, shrimp, and cephalopods. Harbor 

seals are also opportunistic feeders with 

their diet varying with season and 

location. The preferred diet of the 

harbor seal in the Gulf of Alaska 

consists of pollock, octopus, capelin, 

eulachon, and Pacific herring (Calkins, 

1989). Other prey species include cod, 

flat fishes, shrimp, salmon, and squid 

(Hoover, 1988). Harbor porpoises feed 

primarily on Pacific herring, cod, 

whiting (hake), pollock, squid, and 

octopus (Leatherwood et al., 1982). In 

the upper Cook Inlet area, harbor 

porpoise feed on squid and a variety of 

small schooling fish, which would 

likely include Pacific herring and 

eulachon (Bowen and Siniff, 1999; 

NMFS, unpublished data). Killer whales 

feed on either fish or other marine 

mammals depending on genetic type 

(resident versus transient respectively). 

Killer whales in Knik Arm are typically 

the transient type (Shelden et al., 2003) 

and feed on beluga whales and other 

marine mammals, such as harbor seal 

and harbor porpoise. The Steller sea 

lion diet consists of a variety of fishes 

(capelin, cod, herring, mackerel, 

pollock, rockfish, salmon, sand lance, 

etc.), bivalves, squid, octopus, and 

gastropods. 

Potential Impacts on Prey Species 

With regard to fish as a prey source 

for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are 

known to hear and react to sounds and 

to use sound to communicate (Tavolga 

et al., 1981) and possibly avoid 

predators (Wilson and Dill, 2002). 

Experiments have shown that fish can 

sense both the strength and direction of 

sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 

determining whether a fish can sense a 

sound signal, and potentially react to it, 

are the frequency of the signal and the 

strength of the signal in relation to the 

natural background sound level. 

Fishes produce sounds that are 

associated with behaviors that include 

territoriality, mate search, courtship, 

and aggression. It has also been 

speculated that sound production may 

provide the means for long distance 

communication and communication 

under poor underwater visibility 

conditions (Zelick et al., 1999), although 

the fact that fish communicate at lowfrequency sound levels where the 

masking effects of ambient noise are 

naturally highest suggests that very long 

distance communication would rarely 

be possible. Fishes have evolved a 

diversity of sound generating organs and 

acoustic signals of various temporal and 

spectral contents. Fish sounds vary in 

structure, depending on the mechanism 

used to produce them (Hawkins, 1993). 

Generally, fish sounds are 

predominantly composed of low 

frequencies (less than 3 kHz). 

Since objects in the water scatter 

sound, fish are able to detect these 

objects through monitoring the ambient 

noise. Therefore, fish are probably able 

to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, 

and physical features by listening to 

environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). 

There are two sensory systems that 

enable fish to monitor the vibrationbased information of their surroundings. 

The two sensory systems, the inner ear 

and the lateral line, constitute the 

acoustico-lateralis system. 

Although the hearing sensitivities of 

very few fish species have been studied 

to date, it is becoming obvious that the 

intra- and inter-specific variability is 

considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell 

et al. (2004) compiled and published 

available fish audiogram information. A 

noninvasive electrophysiological 

recording method known as auditory 

brainstem response is now commonly 

used in the production of fish 

audiograms (Yan, 2004). Popper and 

Carlson (1998) and the Navy (2001) 

found that fish generally perceive 

underwater sounds in the frequency 

range of 50–2,000 Hz, with peak 

sensitivities below 800 Hz. Even though 

some fish are able to detect sounds in 

the ultrasonic frequency range, the 

thresholds at these higher frequencies 

tend to be considerably higher than 

those at the lower end of the auditory 

frequency range. 

Fish are sensitive to underwater 

impulsive sounds due to swim bladder 

resonance. As the pressure wave passes 

through a fish, the swim bladder is 

rapidly squeezed as the high pressure 

wave, and then the under pressure 

component of the wave, passes through 

the fish. The swim bladder may 

repeatedly expand and contract at the 

high sound pressure levels, creating 

pressure on the internal organs 

surrounding the swim bladder. 

Literature relating to the impacts of 

sound on marine fish species can be 

divided into the following categories: (1) 

Pathological effects; (2) physiological 

effects; and (3) behavioral effects. 

Pathological effects include lethal and 

sub-lethal physical damage to fish; 

physiological effects include primary 

and secondary stress responses; and 

behavioral effects include changes in 

exhibited behaviors of fish. Behavioral 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9523 

changes might be a direct reaction to a 

detected sound or a result of the 

anthropogenic sound masking natural 

sounds that the fish normally detect and 

to which they respond. The three types 

of effects are often interrelated in 

complex ways. For example, some 

physiological and behavioral effects 

could potentially lead to the ultimate 

pathological effect of mortality. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) reviewed what is 

known about the effects of sound on 

fishes and identified studies needed to 

address areas of uncertainty relative to 

measurement of sound and the 

responses of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/ 

2004) also published a paper that 

reviews the effects of anthropogenic 

sound on the behavior and physiology 

of fishes. 

The level of sound at which a fish 

will react or alter its behavior is usually 

well above the detection level. Fish 

have been found to react to sounds 

when the sound level increased to about 

20 dB above the detection level of 120 

dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response 

threshold can depend on the time of 

year and the fish’s physiological 

condition (Engas et al., 1993). In 

general, fish react more strongly to 

pulses of sound rather than a 

continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), 

and a quicker alarm response is elicited 

when the sound signal intensity rises 

rapidly compared to sound rising more 

slowly to the same level. 

Investigations of fish behavior in 

relation to vessel noise (Olsen et al., 

1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) 

have shown that fish react when the 

sound from the engines and propeller 

exceeds a certain level. Avoidance 

reactions have been observed in fish 

such as cod and herring when vessels 

approached close enough that received 

sound levels are 110 dB to 130 dB 

(Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and 

Godo, 1990; Ona and Toresen, 1988). 

However, other researchers have found 

that fish such as polar cod, herring, and 

capelin are often attracted to vessels 

(apparently by the noise) and swim 

toward the vessel (Rostad et al., 2006). 

Typical sound source levels of vessel 

noise in the audible range for fish are 

150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 

1995). 

Carlson (1994), in a review of 40 years 

of studies concerning the use of 

underwater sound to deter salmonids 

from hazardous areas at hydroelectric 

dams and other facilities, concluded 

that salmonids were able to respond to 

low-frequency sound and to react to 

sound sources within a few feet of the 

source. He speculated that the reason 

that underwater sound had no effect on 

salmonids at distances greater than a 

few feet is because they react to water 

particle motion/acceleration, not sound 

pressures. Detectable particle motion is 

produced within very short distances of 

a sound source, although sound 

pressure waves travel farther. 

Potential Impacts to the Benthic 

Environment 

Apache’s seismic survey requires the 

deployment of a submersible recording 

system in the inter-tidal and marine 

zones. An autonomous ‘‘nodal’’ (i.e., no 

cables) system would be placed on the 

seafloor by specific vessels in lines 

parallel to each other with a node line 

spacing of 402 m (0.25 mi). Each nodal 

‘‘patch’’ would have six to eight node 

lines parallel to each other. The lines 

generally run perpendicular to the 

shoreline. An entire patch would be 

placed on the seafloor prior to airgun 

activity. As the patches are surveyed, 

the node lines would be moved either 

side to side or inline to the next 

location. Placement and retrieval of the 

nodes may cause temporary and 

localized increases in turbidity on the 

seafloor. The substrate of Cook Inlet 

consists of glacial silt, clay, cobbles, 

pebbles, and sand (Sharma and Burrell, 

1970). Sediments like sand and cobble 

dissipate quickly when suspended, but 

finer materials like clay and silt can 

create thicker plumes that may harm 

fish; however, the turbidity created by 

placing and removing nodes on the 

seafloor would settle to background 

levels within minutes after the cessation 

of activity. 

In addition, seismic noise will radiate 

throughout the water column from 

airguns and pingers until it dissipates to 

background levels. No studies have 

demonstrated that seismic noise affects 

the life stages, condition, or amount of 

food resources (fish, invertebrates, eggs) 

used by marine mammals, except when 

exposed to sound levels within a few 

meters of the seismic source or in few 

very isolated cases. Where fish or 

invertebrates did respond to seismic 

noise, the effects were temporary and of 

short duration. Consequently, 

disturbance to fish species due to the 

activities associated with the seismic 

survey (i.e, placement and retrieval of 

nodes and noise from sound sources) 

would be short term and fish would be 

expected to return to their predisturbance behavior once seismic 

survey activities cease. 

Based on the preceding discussion, 

the proposed activity is not expected to 

have any habitat-related effects that 

could cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(where relevant). 

Mitigation Measures Proposed by 

Apache 

For the proposed mitigation measures, 

Apache listed the following protocols to 

be implemented during its seismic 

survey program in Cook Inlet. 

1. Operation of Mitigation Airgun at 

Night 

Apache proposes to conduct both 

daytime and nighttime operations. 

Nighttime operations would be initiated 

only if a ‘‘mitigation airgun’’ (typically 

the 10 in3) has been continuously 

operational from the time that PSO 

monitoring has ceased for the day. 

Seismic activity would not ramp up 

from an extended shut-down (i.e., when 

the airgun has been down with no 

activity for at least 10 minutes) during 

nighttime operations, and survey 

activities would be suspended until the 

following day. At night, the vessel 

captain and crew would maintain 

lookout for marine mammals and would 

order the airgun(s) to be shut down if 

marine mammals are observed in or 

about to enter the established exclusion 

zones. 

2. Exclusion and Disturbance Zones 

Apache proposes to establish 

exclusion zones to avoid Level A 

harassment (‘‘injury exclusion zone’’) of 

all marine mammals and to avoid Level 

B harassment (‘‘disturbance exclusion 

zone’’) for groups of five or more killer 

whales or harbor porpoises detected 

within the designated zones. The injury 

exclusion zone will correspond to the 

area around the source within which 

received levels equal or exceed 180 dB 

re 1 mPa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB 

re 1 mPa [rms] for pinnipeds and Apache 

will shut down or power down 

operations if any marine mammals are 

seen approaching or entering this zone 

(more detail below). The disturbance 

exclusion zone will correspond to the 

area around the source within which 

received levels equal or exceed 160 dB 

re 1 mPa [rms] and Apache will 

implement power down and/or 

shutdown measures, as appropriate, if 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

any beluga whales or group of five or 

more killer whales or harbor porpoises 

are seen entering or approaching the 

disturbance exclusion zone. 

3. Power Down and Shutdown 

Procedures 

A power down is the immediate 

reduction in the number of operating 

energy sources from a full array firing to 

a mitigation airgun. A shutdown is the 

immediate cessation of firing of all 

energy sources. The arrays will be 

immediately powered down whenever a 

marine mammal is sighted approaching 

close to or within the applicable 

exclusion zone of the full arrays but is 

outside the applicable exclusion zone of 

the single source. If a marine mammal 

is sighted within the applicable 

exclusion zone of the single energy 

source, the entire array will be 

shutdown (i.e., no sources firing). 

Following a power down or a shutdown, 

airgun activity will not resume until the 

marine mammal has clearly left the 

applicable injury or disturbance 

exclusion zone. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the zone if 

it: (1) Is visually observed to have left 

the zone; (2) has not been seen within 

the zone for 15 minutes in the case of 

pinnipeds and small odontocetes; or (3) 

has not been seen within the zone for 

30 minutes in the case of large 

odontocetes, including killer whales 

and belugas. 

4. Ramp-Up Procedures 

A ramp-up of an airgun array provides 

a gradual increase in sound levels, and 

involves a step-wise increase in the 

number and total volume of air guns 

firing until the full volume is achieved. 

The purpose of a ramp-up (or ‘‘soft 

start’’) is to ‘‘warn’’ cetaceans and 

pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns 

and to provide the time for them to 

leave the area and thus avoid any 

potential injury or impairment of their 

hearing abilities. 

During the proposed seismic survey, 

the seismic operator will ramp up the 

airgun array slowly. NMFS proposes 

that the rate of ramp-up to be no more 

than 6 dB per 5-minute period. Rampup is used at the start of airgun 

operations, after a power- or shut-down, 

and after any period of greater than 10 

minutes in duration without airgun 

operations (i.e., extended shutdown). 

A full ramp-up after a shutdown will 

not begin until there has been a 

minimum of 30 minutes of observation 

of the applicable exclusion zone by 

PSOs to assure that no marine mammals 

are present. The entire exclusion zone 

must be visible during the 30-minute 

lead-in to a full ramp up. If the entire 

exclusion zone is not visible, then rampup from a cold start cannot begin. If a 

marine mammal(s) is sighted within the 

injury exclusion zone during the 30- 

minute watch prior to ramp-up, rampup will be delayed until the marine 

mammal(s) is sighted outside of the 

zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for 

at least 15–30 minutes: 15 minutes for 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g. 

harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and 

Steller sea lions), or 30 minutes for large 

odontocetes (e.g., killer whales and 

beluga whales). 

5. Speed or Course Alteration 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the Level A injury exclusion 

zone and, based on its position and the 

relative motion, is likely to enter that 

zone, the vessel’s speed and/or direct 

course may, when practical and safe, be 

changed to also minimize the effect on 

the seismic program. This can be used 

in coordination with a power down 

procedure. The marine mammal 

activities and movements relative to the 

seismic and support vessels will be 

closely monitored to ensure that the 

marine mammal does not approach 

within the applicable exclusion radius. 

If the mammal appears likely to enter 

the exclusion radius, further mitigative 

actions will be taken, i.e., either further 

course alterations, power down, or shut 

down of the airgun(s). 

6. Measures for Beluga Whales and 

Groups of Killer Whales and Harbor 

Porpoises 

The following additional protective 

measures for beluga whales and groups 

of five or more killer whales and harbor 

porpoises are proposed. Specifically, a 

160-dB vessel monitoring zone would 

be established and monitored in Cook 

Inlet during all seismic surveys. If a 

beluga whale or groups of five or more 

killer whales and/or harbor porpoises 

are visually sighted approaching or 

within the 160-dB disturbance zone, 

survey activity would not commence 

until the animals are no longer present 

within the 160-dB disturbance zone. 

Whenever beluga whales or groups of 

five or more killer whales and/or harbor 

porpoises are detected approaching or 

within the 160-dB disturbance zone, the 

airguns may be powered down before 

the animal is within the 160-dB 

disturbance zone, as an alternative to a 

complete shutdown. If a power down is 

not sufficient, the sound source(s) shall 

be shut-down until the animals are no 

longer present within the 160-dB zone. 

Additional Mitigation Measures 

Proposed by NMFS 

In addition to the mitigation measures 

proposed by Apache, NMFS proposes 

implementation of the following 

mitigation measures. 

Apache must not operate airguns 

within 10 miles (16 km) of the mean 

higher high water (MHHW) line of the 

Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little 

Susitna River) between April 15 and 

October 15. The purpose of this 

mitigation measure is to protect beluga 

whales in the designated critical habitat 

in this area that is important for beluga 

whale feeding and calving during the 

spring and fall months. The range of the 

setback required by NMFS was 

designated to protect this important 

habitat area and also to create an 

effective buffer where sound does not 

encroach on this habitat. This seasonal 

exclusion is proposed to be in effect 

from April 15–October 15. Activities 

can occur within this area from October 

16–April 14. 

The mitigation airgun will be 

operated at approximately one shot per 

minute, only during daylight and when 

there is good visibility, and will not be 

operated for longer than 3 hours in 

duration. In cases when the next startup after the turn is expected to be 

during lowlight or low visibility, use of 

the mitigation airgun may be initiated 

30 minutes before darkness or low 

visibility conditions occur and may be 

operated until the start of the next 

seismic acquisition line. The mitigation 

gun must still be operated at 

approximately one shot per minute. 

NMFS proposes that Apache must 

suspend seismic operations if a live 

marine mammal stranding is reported in 

Cook Inlet coincident to, or within 72 

hours of, seismic survey activities 

involving the use of airguns (regardless 

of any suspected cause of the stranding). 

The shutdown must occur if the animal 

is within a distance two times that of 

the 160 dB isopleth of the largest airgun 

array configuration in use. This distance 

was chosen to create an additional 

buffer beyond the distance at which 

animals would typically be considered 

harassed, as animals involved in a live 

stranding event are likely compromised, 

with potentially increased susceptibility 

to stressors, and the goal is to decrease 

the likelihood that they are further 

disturbed or impacted by the seismic 

survey, regardless of what the original 

cause of the stranding event was. 

Shutdown procedures will remain in 

effect until NMFS determines and 

advises Apache that all live animals 

involved in the stranding have left the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9525 

area (either of their own volition or 

following herding by responders). 

Finally, NMFS proposes that if any 

marine mammal species are 

encountered, during seismic activities 

for which take is not authorized, that are 

likely to be exposed to sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms), then Apache 

must alter speed or course, power down 

or shut-down the sound source to avoid 

take of those species. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated 

Apache’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

NMFS prescribes the means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected marine mammal species 

and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measures are 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

1. Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

2. A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of seismic airguns, or other activities 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing harassment takes 

only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to received levels of 

seismic airguns or other activities 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing harassment takes 

only). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of seismic 

airguns or other activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing the severity of harassment 

takes only). 

5. Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

6. For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammals species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for ITAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. Apache submitted 

information regarding marine mammal 

monitoring to be conducted during 

seismic operations as part of the 

proposed rule application. That 

information can be found in Sections 12 

and 14 of the application. The 

monitoring measures may be modified 

or supplemented based on comments or 

new information received from the 

public during the public comment 

period. 

Monitoring measures proposed by the 

applicant or prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to or accomplish one 

or more of the following top-level goals: 

1. An increase in our understanding 

of the likely occurrence of marine 

mammal species in the vicinity of the 

action, i.e., presence, abundance, 

distribution, and/or density of species. 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of the nature, scope, or context of the 

likely exposure of marine mammal 

species to any of the potential stressor(s) 

associated with the action (e.g. sound or 

visual stimuli), through better 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: the action itself and its 

environment (e.g. sound source 

characterization, propagation, and 

ambient noise levels); the affected 

species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); 

the likely co-occurrence of marine 

mammal species with the action (in 

whole or part) associated with specific 

adverse effects; and/or the likely 

biological or behavioral context of 

exposure to the stressor for the marine 

mammal (e.g. age class of exposed 

animals or known pupping, calving or 

feeding areas). 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how individual marine mammals 

respond (behaviorally or 

physiologically) to the specific stressors 

associated with the action (in specific 

contexts, where possible, e.g., at what 

distance or received level). 

4. An increase in our understanding 

of how anticipated individual 

responses, to individual stressors or 

anticipated combinations of stressors, 

may impact either: the long-term fitness 

and survival of an individual; or the 

population, species, or stock (e.g., 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival). 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of how the activity affects marine 

mammal habitat, such as through effects 

on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., 

through characterization of longer-term 

contributions of multiple sound sources 

to rising ambient noise levels and 

assessment of the potential chronic 

effects on marine mammals). 

6. An increase in understanding of the 

impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals in combination with the 

impacts of other anthropogenic 

activities or natural factors occurring in 

the region. 

7. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of mitigation and 

monitoring measures. 

8. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals (through 

improved technology or methodology), 

both specifically within the safety zone 

(thus allowing for more effective 

implementation of the mitigation) and 

in general, to better achieve the above 

goals. 

Monitoring Results From Previously 

Authorized Activities 

As noted earlier in this document, 

NMFS has issued three IHAs to Apache 

for this same proposed activity. No 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

seismic surveys were conducted under 

the IHA issued in February 2013 

(became effective March 1, 2013). 

Apache conducted seismic operations 

under the first IHA issued in April 2012. 

Below is a summary of the results from 

the monitoring conducted in accordance 

with the April 2012 IHA. 

Marine mammal monitoring was 

conducted in central Cook Inlet between 

May 6 and September 30, 2012, which 

resulted in a total of 6,912 hours of 

observations. Monitoring was conducted 

from the two seismic survey vessels, a 

mitigation/monitoring vessel, four land 

platforms, and an aerial platform (either 

a helicopter or small fixed wing 

aircraft). PSOs monitored from the 

seismic vessels, mitigation/monitoring 

vessel, and land platforms during all 

daytime seismic operations. Aerial 

overflights were conducted 1–2 times 

daily over the survey area and 

surrounding coastline, including the 

major river mouths, to monitor for larger 

concentrations of marine mammals in 

and around the survey site. Passive 

acoustic monitoring (PAM) took place 

from the mitigation/monitoring vessel 

during all nighttime seismic survey 

operations and most daytime seismic 

survey operations. During the entire 

2012 survey season, Apache’s PAM 

equipment yielded only six confirmed 

marine mammal detections, one of 

which was a Cook Inlet beluga whale. 

Six identified species and three 

unidentified species of marine 

mammals were observed from the 

vessel, land, and aerial platforms 

between May 6 and September 30, 2012. 

The species observed included Cook 

Inlet beluga whales, harbor seals, harbor 

porpoises, Steller sea lions, gray whales, 

and California sea lions. PSOs also 

observed unidentified species, 

including a large cetacean, pinniped, 

and marine mammal. The gray whale 

and California sea lion were not 

included in the 2012 IHA, so mitigation 

measures were implemented for these 

species to prevent unauthorized takes. 

There were a total of 882 sightings and 

an estimated 5,232 individuals (the 

number of individuals is typically 

higher than the number of sightings 

because a single sighting may consist of 

multiple individuals). Harbor seals were 

the most frequently observed marine 

mammal at 563 sightings of 

approximately 3,471 individuals, 

followed by beluga whales with 151 

sightings of approximately 1,463 

individuals, harbor porpoises with 137 

sightings of approximately 190 

individuals, and gray whales with 9 

sightings of 9 individuals. Steller sea 

lions were observed on three separate 

occasions (4 individuals), and two 

California sea lions were observed once. 

No killer whales were observed during 

seismic survey operations conducted 

under the 2012 IHA. 

A total of 88 exclusion zone clearing 

delays, 154 shutdowns, 7 power downs, 

23 shutdowns following a power down, 

and one speed and course alteration 

were implemented under the 2012 IHA. 

Exclusion zone clearing delays, 

shutdowns, and shutdowns following a 

power down occurred most frequently 

during harbor seal sightings (n=61, 

n=110, n=14, respectively), followed by 

harbor porpoise sightings (n=18, n=28, 

n=6, respectively), and then beluga 

whale sightings (n=5, n=6, n=3, 

respectively). Power downs occurred 

most frequently with harbor seal (n=3) 

and harbor porpoise (n=3) sightings. 

One speed and course alteration 

occurred in response to a beluga whale 

sighting. 

Based on the information from the 

2012 monitoring report, NMFS has 

determined that Apache complied with 

the conditions of the 2012 IHA, and we 

conclude that these results support our 

original findings that the mitigation 

measures set forth in the 2012 

Authorization effected the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stocks. 

Although Apache did not conduct any 

seismic survey operations under the 

2013 IHA, they still conducted marine 

mammal monitoring surveys between 

May and August 2013. During those 

aerial surveys, Apache detected a total 

of three marine mammal species: beluga 

whale; harbor porpoise; and harbor seal. 

A total of 718 individual belugas, three 

harbor porpoises, and 919 harbor seals 

were sighted. Of the 718 observed 

belugas, 61 were calves. All of the calf 

sightings occurred in the Susitna Delta 

area, with the exception of a couple 

south of the Beluga River and a couple 

in Turnagain Arm. More than 60 percent 

of the beluga calf sightings occurred in 

June (n=39). 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

1. Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring 

Vessel-based monitoring for marine 

mammals would be done by 

experienced PSOs throughout the 

period of marine survey activities. PSOs 

would monitor the occurrence and 

behavior of marine mammals near the 

survey vessel during all daylight periods 

(nautical dawn to nautical dusk) during 

operation and during most daylight 

periods when airgun operations are not 

occurring. PSO duties would include 

watching for and identifying marine 

mammals, recording their numbers, 

distances, and reactions to the survey 

operations, and documenting ‘‘take by 

harassment’’ as defined by NMFS. 

A minimum number of six PSOs (two 

per source vessel and two per support 

vessel) would be required onboard the 

survey vessel to meet the following 

criteria: (1) 100 percent monitoring 

coverage during all periods of survey 

operations in daylight (nautical twilightdawn to nautical twilight-dusk; (2) 

maximum of 4 consecutive hours on 

watch per PSO; and (3) maximum of 12 

hours of watch time per day per PSO. 

PSO teams would consist of NMFSapproved field biologists. An 

experienced field crew leader would 

supervise the PSO team onboard the 

survey vessel. Apache currently plans to 

have PSOs aboard three vessels: the two 

source vessels (M/V Peregrine Falcon 

and M/V Arctic Wolf) and one support 

vessel (M/V Dreamcatcher). Two PSOs 

would be on the source vessels, and two 

PSOs would be on the support vessel to 

observe and implement the exclusion, 

power down, and shut down areas. 

When marine mammals are about to 

enter or are sighted within designated 

harassment and exclusion zones, airgun 

or pinger operations would be powered 

down (when applicable) or shut down 

immediately. The vessel-based 

observers would watch for marine 

mammals during all periods when 

sound sources are in operation and for 

a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the 

start of airgun or pinger operations after 

an extended shut down. 

Crew leaders and most other 

biologists serving as observers would be 

individuals with experience as 

observers during seismic surveys in 

Alaska or other areas in recent years. 

The observer(s) would watch for 

marine mammals from the best available 

vantage point on the source and support 

vessels, typically the flying bridge. The 

observer(s) would scan systematically 

with the unaided eye and 7×50 reticle 

binoculars. Laser range finders would be 

available to assist with estimating 

distance on the two source vessels. 

Personnel on the bridge would assist the 

observer(s) in watching for marine 

mammals. 

All observations would be recorded in 

a standardized format. Data would be 

entered into a custom database using a 

notebook computer. The accuracy of the 

data would be verified by computerized 

validity data checks as the data are 

entered and by subsequent manual 

checks of the database. These 

procedures would allow for initial 

summaries of the data to be prepared 

during and shortly after the completion 

of the field program, and would 

facilitate transfer of the data to 

statistical, geographical, or other 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9527 

programs for future processing and 

achieving. When a mammal sighting is 

made, the following information about 

the sighting would be recorded: 

• Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from the PSO, apparent 

reaction to activities (e.g., none, 

avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), 

closest point of approach, and 

behavioral pace; 

• Time, location, speed, activity of 

the vessel (e.g., seismic airguns off, 

pingers on, etc.), sea state, ice cover, 

visibility, and sun glare; and 

• The positions of other vessel(s) in 

the vicinity of the PSO location. 

The ship’s position, speed of support 

vessels, and water temperature, water 

depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and 

sun glare would also be recorded at the 

start and end of each observation watch, 

every 30 minutes during a watch, and 

whenever there is a change in any of 

those variables. 

2. Visual Shore-Based Monitoring 

In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, 

Apache proposes to utilize a shorebased station daily, to visually monitor 

for marine mammals. The location of 

the shore-based station would need to 

be sufficiently high to observe marine 

mammals; the PSOs would be equipped 

with pedestal mounted ‘‘big eye’’ 

(20x110) binoculars. The shore-based 

PSOs would scan the area prior to, 

during, and after the airgun operations 

and would be in contact with the vesselbased PSOs via radio to communicate 

sightings of marine mammals 

approaching or within the project area. 

This communication will allow the 

vessel-based observers to go on a 

‘‘heightened’’ state of alert regarding 

occurrence of marine mammals in the 

area and aid in timely implementation 

of mitigation measures. 

3. Aerial-Based Monitoring 

When practicable, Apache proposes to 

utilize helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft 

to conduct aerial surveys of the project 

area prior to the commencement of 

operations in order to identify locations 

of congregations of beluga whales. 

Apache proposes to conduct daily aerial 

surveys. Daily surveys will be 

scheduled to occur at least 30 minutes 

and no more than 120 minutes prior to 

any seismic-related activities (including 

but not limited to node laying/retrieval 

or airgun operations). Daily aerial 

surveys will also occur on days that 

there may be no seismic activities. 

Aerial surveys are proposed to occur 

along and parallel to the shoreline 

throughout the project area as well as 

the eastern and western shores of 

central and northern Cook Inlet. 

Weather and safety permitting, aerial 

surveys would fly at an altitude of 305 

m (1,000 ft). In the event of a marine 

mammal sighting, aircraft would 

attempt to maintain a radial distance of 

457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine 

mammal(s). Aircraft would avoid 

approaching marine mammals from 

head-on, flying over or passing the 

shadow of the aircraft over the marine 

mammal(s). By following these 

operational requirements, aerial surveys 

are not expected to harass marine 

mammals (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Blackwell et al., 2002). 

Based on data collected from Apache 

during its survey operations conducted 

under the April 2012 and March 2014 

IHAs, NMFS determined that the 

foregoing monitoring measures will 

allow Apache to identify animals 

nearing or entering the Level B 

disturbance exclusion zone with a 

reasonably high degree of accuracy. 

Reporting Measures 

Immediate reports will be submitted 

to NMFS if 25 belugas are detected in 

the Level B disturbance exclusion zone 

to evaluate and make necessary 

adjustments to monitoring and 

mitigation. If the number of detected 

takes for any marine mammal species is 

met or exceeded, Apache will 

immediately cease survey operations 

involving the use of active sound 

sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) and 

notify NMFS. 

1. Weekly Reports 

Apache would submit a weekly field 

report to NMFS Headquarters as well as 

the Alaska Regional Office, no later than 

close of business each Thursday during 

the weeks when in-water seismic survey 

activities take place. The weekly field 

reports would summarize species 

detected (number, location, distance 

from seismic vessel, behavior), in-water 

activity occurring at the time of the 

sighting (discharge volume of array at 

time of sighting, seismic activity at time 

of sighting, visual plots of sightings, and 

number of power downs and 

shutdowns), behavioral reactions to inwater activities, and the number of 

marine mammals exposed. 

2. Monthly Reports 

Monthly reports will be submitted to 

NMFS for all months during which inwater seismic activities take place. The 

monthly report will contain and 

summarize the following information: 

• Dates, times, locations, heading, 

speed, weather, sea conditions 

(including Beaufort sea state and wind 

force), and associated activities during 

all seismic operations and marine 

mammal sightings. 

• Species, number, location, distance 

from the vessel, and behavior of any 

sighted marine mammals, as well as 

associated seismic activity (number of 

power-downs and shutdowns), observed 

throughout all monitoring activities. 

• An estimate of the number (by 

species) of: (i) Pinnipeds that have been 

exposed to the seismic activity (based 

on visual observation) at received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with 

a discussion of any specific behaviors 

those individuals exhibited; and (ii) 

cetaceans that have been exposed to the 

seismic activity (based on visual 

observation) at received levels greater 

than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a 

discussion of any specific behaviors 

those individuals exhibited. 

• A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the: 

(i) terms and conditions of the 

Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take 

Statement (ITS); and (ii) mitigation 

measures of the LOA. For the Biological 

Opinion, the report shall confirm the 

implementation of each Term and 

Condition, as well as any conservation 

recommendations, and describe their 

effectiveness for minimizing the adverse 

effects of the action on ESA-listed 

marine mammals. 

3. Annual Reports 

Apache would submit an annual 

report to NMFS’s Permits and 

Conservation Division within 90 days 

after the end of every operating season 

but no later than 60 days before the 

expiration of each annual LOA during 

the five-year period. The annual report 

would include: 

• Summaries of monitoring effort 

(e.g., total hours, total distances, and 

marine mammal distribution through 

the study period, accounting for sea 

state and other factors affecting 

visibility and detectability of marine 

mammals). 

• Analyses of the effects of various 

factors influencing detectability of 

marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number 

of observers, and fog/glare). 

• Species composition, occurrence, 

and distribution of marine mammal 

sightings, including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 

determinable), group sizes, and ice 

cover. 

• Analyses of the effects of survey 

operations. 

• Sighting rates of marine mammals 

during periods with and without 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

seismic survey activities (and other 

variables that could affect detectability), 

such as: (i) Initial sighting distances 

versus survey activity state; (ii) closest 

point of approach versus survey activity 

state; (iii) observed behaviors and types 

of movements versus survey activity 

state; (iv) numbers of sightings/

individuals seen versus survey activity 

state; (v) distribution around the source 

vessels versus survey activity state; and 

(vi) numbers of animals detected in the 

160 dB harassment (disturbance 

exclusion) zone. 

NMFS would review the draft annual 

reports. Apache must then submit a 

final annual report to the Chief, Permits 

and Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 

days after receiving comments from 

NMFS on the draft annual report. If 

NMFS decides that the draft annual 

report needs no comments, the draft 

report shall be considered to be the final 

report. 

4. Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this Authorization, such 

as an injury (Level A harassment), 

serious injury or mortality (e.g., shipstrike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), Apache shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, her 

designees, and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinators. The report must 

include the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with Apache to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Apache may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS 

via letter or email, or telephone. 

In the event that Apache discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition 

as described in the next paragraph), 

Apache would immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, her 

designees, and the NMFS Alaska 

Stranding Hotline. The report must 

include the same information identified 

in the paragraph above. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Apache to determine 

whether modifications in the activities 

are appropriate. 

In the event that Apache discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the authorized activities (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

Apache shall report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, her designees, the NMFS Alaska 

Stranding Hotline, and the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators within 

24 hours of the discovery. Apache shall 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. Only take by Level B 

behavioral harassment is anticipated as 

a result of the proposed seismic survey 

program with proposed mitigation. 

Anticipated impacts to marine 

mammals are associated with noise 

propagation from the sound sources 

(e.g., airguns and pingers) used in the 

seismic survey; no take is expected to 

result from the detonation of explosives 

onshore, as supported by the SSV study, 

from vessel strikes because of the slow 

speed of the vessels (2–4 knots), or from 

aircraft overflights, as surveys will be 

flown at a minimum altitude of 305 m 

(1,000 ft) and at 457 m (1,500 ft) when 

marine mammals are detected. 

Apache requests authorization to take 

six marine mammal species by Level B 

harassment. These six marine mammal 

species are: Cook Inlet beluga whale; 

killer whale; harbor porpoise; gray 

whale; harbor seal; and Steller sea lion. 

For impulse sounds, such as those 

produced by airgun(s) used in the 

seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) isopleth to indicate the 

onset of Level B harassment. The 

current Level A (injury) harassment 

threshold is 180 dB (rms) for cetaceans 

and 190 dB (rms) for pinnipeds. The 

NMFS annual aerial survey data 

provided in Table 5 of Apache’s 

application was used to derive density 

estimates for each species (number of 

individuals/km2). 

Applicable Zones for Estimating ‘‘Take 

by Harassment’’ 

To estimate potential takes by Level B 

harassment for this proposed rule, as 

well as for mitigation radii to be 

implemented by PSOs, ranges to the 160 

dB (rms) isopleths were estimated at 

three different water depths (5 m, 25 m, 

and 45 m) for nearshore surveys and at 

80 m for channel surveys. The distances 

to this threshold for the nearshore 

survey locations are provided in Table 

2 in Apache’s application and 

correspond to the three transects 

modeled at each site in the onshore, 

nearshore, and parallel to shore 

directions. To estimate take by Level B 

harassment, Apache used the largest 

value from each category. The distances 

to the thresholds for the channel survey 

locations are provided in Table 4 in 

Apache’s application and correspond to 

the broadside and endfire directions. 

The areas ensonified to the 160 dB 

isopleth for the nearshore survey are 

provided in Table 3 in Apache’s 

application. The area ensonified to the 

160 dB isopleth for the channel survey 

is 517 km2. 

Compared to the airguns, the relevant 

isopleths for the positioning pinger is 

quite small. The distances to the 190, 

180, and 160 dB (rms) isopleths are 1 m, 

3 m, and 25 m (3.3, 10, and 82 ft), 

respectively. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9529 

Estimates of Marine Mammal Density 

Apache used one method to estimate 

densities for Cook Inlet beluga whales 

and another method for the other 

marine mammals in the area expected to 

be taken by harassment. Both methods 

are described in this document. 

1. Beluga Whale Density Estimates 

In consultation with staff from 

NMFS’s National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (NMML) during 

development of the second IHA in early 

2013, Apache used a habitat-based 

model developed by Goetz et al. 

(2012a). Information from that model 

has once again been used to estimate 

densities of beluga whales in Cook Inlet 

and we consider it to be the best 

available information on beluga density. 

A summary of the model is provided 

here, and additional detail can be found 

in Goetz et al. (2012a). To develop 

NMML’s estimated densities of belugas, 

Goetz et al. (2012a) developed a model 

based on aerial survey data, depth 

soundings, coastal substrate type, 

environmental sensitivity index, 

anthropogenic disturbance, and 

anadromous fish streams to predict 

beluga densities throughout Cook Inlet. 

The result of this work is a beluga 

density map of Cook Inlet, which easily 

sums the belugas predicted within a 

given geographic area. NMML 

developed its predictive habitat model 

from the distribution and group size of 

beluga whales observed between 1994 

and 2008. A 2-part ‘‘hurdle’’ model (a 

hurdle model in which there are two 

processes, one generating the zeroes and 

one generating the positive values) was 

applied to describe the physical and 

anthropogenic factors that influence (1) 

beluga presence (mixed model logistic 

regression) and (2) beluga count data 

(mixed model Poisson regression). 

Beluga presence was negatively 

associated with sources of 

anthropogenic disturbance and 

positively associated with fish 

availability and access to tidal flats and 

sandy substrates. Beluga group size was 

positively associated with tidal flats and 

proxies for seasonally available fish. 

Using this analysis, Goetz et al. (2012) 

produced habitat maps for beluga 

presence, group size, and the expected 

number of belugas in each 1 km2 cell of 

Cook Inlet. The habitat-based model 

developed by NMML uses a Geographic 

Information System (GIS). A GIS is a 

computer system capable of capturing, 

storing, analyzing, and displaying 

geographically referenced information; 

that is, data identified according to 

location. However, the Goetz et al. 

(2012) model does not incorporate 

seasonality into the density estimates. 

Rather, Apache factors in seasonal 

considerations of beluga density into the 

design of the survey tracklines and 

locations (as discussion in more detail 

later in this document) in addition to 

other factors such as weather, ice 

conditions, and seismic needs. 

2. Non-beluga Whale Species Density 

Estimates 

Densities of other marine mammals in 

the proposed project area were 

estimated from the annual aerial surveys 

conducted by NMFS for Cook Inlet 

beluga whale between 2000 and 2012 in 

June (Rugh et al., 2000, 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004b, 2005b, 2006, 2007; 

Shelden et al., 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012; 

Hobbs et al., 2011). These surveys were 

flown in June to collect abundance data 

of beluga whales, but sightings of other 

marine mammals were also reported. 

Although these data were only collected 

in one month each year, these surveys 

provide the best available relatively long 

term data set for sighting information in 

the proposed project area. The general 

trend in marine mammal sighting is that 

beluga whales and harbor seals are seen 

most frequently in upper Cook Inlet, 

with higher concentrations of harbor 

seals near haul out sites on Kalgin 

Island and of beluga whales near river 

mouths, particularly the Susitna River. 

The other marine mammals of interest 

for this rule (killer whales, gray whales, 

harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions) are 

observed infrequently in upper Cook 

Inlet and more commonly in lower Cook 

Inlet. In addition, these densities are 

calculated based on a relatively large 

area that was surveyed, much larger 

than the proposed area for a given year 

of seismic data acquisition. 

Furthermore, these annual aerial 

surveys are conducted only in June 

(numbers from August surveys were not 

used because the area surveyed was not 

provided), so it does not account for 

seasonal variations in distribution or 

habitat use of each species. 

Table 5 in Apache’s application 

provides a summary of the results of 

each annual NMFS aerial survey 

conducted in June from 2000 to 2012. 

The total number of individuals sighted 

for each survey by year is reported, as 

well as total hours for the entire survey 

and total area surveyed. To estimate 

density of marine mammals, total 

number of individuals (other species) 

observed for the entire survey area by 

year (surveys usually last several days) 

was divided by the approximate total 

area surveyed for each year (density = 

individuals/km2). As noted previously, 

the total number of animals observed for 

the entire survey includes both lower 

and upper Cook Inlet, so the total 

number reported and used to calculate 

density is higher than the number of 

marine mammals anticipated to be 

observed in the project area. In 

particular, the total number of harbor 

seals observed on several surveys is very 

high due to several large haul outs in 

lower and middle Cook Inlet. The table 

below (Table 2) provides average 

density estimates for gray whales, 

harbor seals, harbor porpoises, killer 

whales, and Steller sea lions over the 

2000–2012 period. 

TABLE 2—ANIMAL DENSITIES IN COOK

INLET

Species Average density 

(animals/km2) 

Gray whale ..................... 5.33E–05 

Harbor seal ..................... 0.24931 

Harbor porpoise .............. 0.003895 

Killer whale ..................... 0.000748 

Steller sea lion ................ 0.008281 

Calculation of Takes by Harassment 

1. Beluga Whales 

As a result of discussions with NMFS, 

Apache has used the NMML model 

(Goetz et al., 2012a) for the estimate of 

takes in this proposed rule. Apache has 

established two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 

2) and proposes to conduct seismic 

surveys within all, or part of these 

zones; to be determined as weather, ice, 

and priorities dictate. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

Figure 2: A map of Apache survey 

area divided into Zone 1 and Zone 2 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Based on information using Goetz et 

al. model (2012a), Apache derived one 

density estimate for beluga whales in 

Upper Cook Inlet (i.e., north of the 

Forelands) and another density estimate 

for beluga whales in Lower Cook Inlet 

(i.e., south of the Forelands). The 

density estimate for Upper Cook Inlet is 

0.0212 and is 0.0056 for Lower Cook 

Inlet. Apache’s annual seismic 

operational area would be determined 

as weather, ice, and priorities dictate. 

Apache has requested a maximum 

allowed take for Cook Inlet beluga 

whales of 30 individuals. During each 

annual LOA (if issued), Apache would 

operate in a portion of the total seismic 

operation area of 5,684 km2 (2,195 mi2), 

such that when one multiplies the 

anticipated beluga whale density based 

on the seismic survey operational area 

times the area to be ensonified to the 

160-dB isopleth of 9.5 km (5.9 mi), 

estimated takes will not exceed 30 

beluga whales in a given year 

In order to estimate when that level is 

reached, Apache has developed a 

formula based on the total area of each 

seismic survey project zone (including 

the 160 dB buffer) and the average 

density of beluga whales for each zone. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP23FE15.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9531 

TABLE 3—EXPECTED BELUGA WHALE TAKES, TOTAL AREA OF ZONE, AND AVERAGE BELUGA WHALE DENSITY ESTIMATES

Expected Beluga 

takes from NMML 

model (including the 

160 dB buffer) 

Total area of 

zone (km2) 

(including the 

160 dB buffer) 

Average take density 

(dx) 

Zone 1 ................................................................................................. 28 1319 d1 = 0.0212 

Zone 2 ................................................................................................. 29 5160 d2 = 0.0056 

Apache will limit surveying in the 

proposed seismic survey area (Zones 1 

and 2 presented in Figure 2 of Apache’s 

application) to ensure a maximum of 30 

beluga takes during each open water 

season. In order to ensure that Apache 

does not exceed 30 beluga whale takes, 

Apache developed the following 

equation: 

This formula also allows Apache to 

have flexibility to prioritize survey 

locations in response to local weather, 

ice, and operational constraints. Apache 

may choose to survey portions of a zone 

or a zone in its entirety, and the analysis 

in this proposed rule takes this into 

account. For the 2015 season, Apache is 

proposing to survey the same area that 

was authorized in 2014, which uses the 

same delineation of Zone 1 and Zone 2 

as the previous IHA. Using this formula, 

if Apache surveys the entire area of 

Zone 1 (1,319 km2), then essentially 

none of Zone 2 will be surveyed because 

the input in the calculation denoted by 

d2A2 would essentially need to be zero 

to ensure that the total allotted proposed 

take of beluga whales is not exceeded. 

The use of this formula will ensure that 

Apache’s proposed seismic program, 

including the 160 dB buffer, will not 

exceed 30 calculated beluga takes. 

Apache proposes to initially limit 

actual survey areas, including 160 dB 

buffer zones, to satisfy the formula 

denoted here. Operations are required to 

cease once Apache has conducted 

seismic data acquisition in an area 

where multiplying the applicable 

density by the total ensonified area out 

to the 160-dB isopleth equaled 30 

beluga whales, using the equation 

provided above. 

2. Other Marine Mammal Species 

The estimated number of other Cook 

Inlet marine mammals that may be 

potentially harassed during the seismic 

surveys was calculated by multiplying 

the average density estimates (presented 

in Table 2 in this document) by the area 

ensonified by levels ≥160 dB re mPa rms 

(see Appendix C and Appendix D in 

Apache’s application for more 

information). 

Apache anticipates that a crew will 

collect seismic data for 8–12 hours per 

day over approximately 160 days over 

the course of 8 to 9 months each year. 

It is assumed that over the course of 

these 160 days, 100 days would be 

working in the offshore region and 60 

days in the shallow, intermediate, and 

deep nearshore region. Of those 60 days 

in the nearshore region, 20 days would 

be in each depth. It is important to note 

that environmental conditions (such as 

ice, wind, fog) will play a significant 

role in the actual operating days; 

therefore, these estimates are 

conservative in order to provide a basis 

for probability of encountering these 

marine mammal species in the project 

area. 

NMFS calculated the number of 

potential exposure instances for each 

non-beluga species using the density 

information derived from NMFS aerial 

surveys conducted from 2000–2012. 

These animal densities were multiplied 

by the number of days in each water 

depth (shallow, intermediate, deep, or 

offshore) as well as the estimated 

ensonified area per day for each water 

depth. This method is likely an 

overestimation of take as it represents 

every possible instance of take, without 

allowing for repeated take of 

individuals, which is possible with 

resident species. 

The number of estimated takes by 

harassment was calculated using the 

total ensonified area of 7,096km 2 for the 

proposed survey area. This area was 

multiplied by a contingency factor of 

25% to account for any necessary 

repeats of tracklines. 

Total ensonified project area 

(7,096km 2) + 25% of total area = 

8,870km 2

This total area was multiplied by the 

average density that was calculated for 

each species in the area (Table 2 in this 

document). As this estimation method 

does not account for any new animals 

transiting in and out of the project area, 

the calculated value was then 

multiplied by a turnover factor. The 

turnover factor is a value assigned by 

species that accounts for movement of 

new animals into the survey area. The 

assigned turnover estimates are based 

on estimates derived by Wood et al. 

2012 in a density estimation for a 3D 

seismic survey environmental impact 

report. The turnover estimates range 

from 1 to 2.5, with a turnover factor of 

1 assigned to residential species and 2.5 

assigned to transitory species. 

Table 3 below outlines the calculation 

of encounter probabilities for nonbeluga species and how they were 

calculated. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP23FE15.002</GPH>
9532 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—ENCOUNTER PROBABILITY OF NON-BELUGA SPECIES PER SEASON

Species 

Density 

estimate 

(individuals/

km2) 

Exposure 

instances 

Ensonified 

area (km2) 

Ensonified 

area with 

contingency 

factor 

(km2) 

Turnover 

factor 

Exposure 

estimate 

(individuals) 

Gray whale ............................................... 5.33E–05 4.6 7096 8870 2.5 1.2 

Harbor seal .............................................. 0.24931 21,435.7 7096 8870 1 2211.4 

Harbor porpoise ....................................... 0.003895 334.9 7096 8870 1 34.5 

Killer whale ............................................... 0.000748 64.3 7096 8870 1.25 8.3 

Steller sea lion ......................................... 0.008281 712.0 7096 8870 1 73.5 

Summary of Proposed Level B 

Harassment Takes 

Table 4 here outlines the density 

estimates used to estimate Level B 

harassment takes, the requested Level B 

harassment take levels, the abundance 

of each species in Cook Inlet, the 

percentage of each species or stock 

estimated to be taken, and current 

population trends. 

TABLE 5—DENSITY ESTIMATES, PROPOSED LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE LEVELS, SPECIES OR STOCK ABUNDANCE, 

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN, AND SPECIES TREND STATUS

Species 

Average 

density 

(#individuals/

km2) 

Proposed level 

B take Abundance Percentage of population Trend 

Beluga Whale ..................... Upper = 

0.0212 

Lower = 

0.0056 

30 312 .................................... 9.6 Decreasing 

Harbor Seal ......................... 0.24931 2,211 22,900 ............................... 9.7 Stable 

Harbor Porpoise .................. 0.003895 35 31,046 ............................... 0.11 No reliable information 

Killer Whale ......................... 0.000748 8 1,123 (resident) ................

345 (transient) ..................

0.71 

2.31 

Resident stock possibly increasing 

Transient stock stable 

Steller Sea Lion .................. 0.008281 73 79,300 ............................... 0.09 Decreasing but with regional variability (some stable or increasing) 

Gray Whale ......................... 5.33E–05 1 19,126 ............................... 0.005 Stable/increasing 

The following table applies the 

proposed Level B harassment take levels 

from Table 4 and expands them to a 5 

year timeline, spanning the entire 

duration of the proposed rule. 

TABLE 6—PROPOSED LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE LEVELS FOR 5 YEAR PERIOD

Species Annual proposed 

level B take 

Project total 

(5 Year) 

level B take 

Beluga Whale .............................................................................................................................................. 30 150 

Harbor Seal .................................................................................................................................................. 2,211 11,055 

Harbor Porpoise ........................................................................................................................................... 35 175 

Killer Whale .................................................................................................................................................. 8 40 

Steller Sea Lion ........................................................................................................................................... 73 365 

Gray Whale .................................................................................................................................................. 1 5 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact 

Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of Level B harassment takes, alone, is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

feeding, migration, etc.), as well as the 

number and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, 

and the status of the species. 

Given the proposed mitigation and 

related monitoring, no injuries or 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9533 

mortalities are anticipated to occur as a 

result of Apache’s proposed seismic 

survey in Cook Inlet, and none are 

proposed to be authorized. 

Additionally, animals in the area are not 

expected to incur hearing impairment 

(i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory 

physiological effects. The number of 

takes that are anticipated and proposed 

to be authorized are expected to be 

limited to short-term Level B behavioral 

harassment. The seismic airguns do not 

operate continuously over a 24-hour 

period. Rather airguns are operational 

for a few hours at a time totaling about 

12 hours a day. 

Both Cook Inlet beluga whales and the 

western stock of Steller sea lions are 

listed as endangered under the ESA. 

Both stocks are also considered depleted 

under the MMPA. The estimated annual 

rate of decline for Cook Inlet beluga 

whales was 0.6 percent between 2002 

and 2012. Steller sea lion trends for the 

western stock are variable throughout 

the region with some decreasing and 

others remaining stable or even 

indicating slight increases. The other 

four species that may be taken by 

harassment during Apache’s proposed 

seismic survey program are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA nor as depleted under the MMPA. 

Odontocete (including Cook Inlet 

beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor 

porpoises) reactions to seismic energy 

pulses are usually assumed to be limited 

to shorter distances from the airgun(s) 

than are those of mysticetes, in part 

because odontocete low-frequency 

hearing is assumed to be less sensitive 

than that of mysticetes. When in the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, 

belugas appear to be fairly responsive to 

seismic energy, with few being sighted 

within 10–20 km (6–12 mi) of seismic 

vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et 

al., 2005). However, as noted above, 

Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed 

to anthropogenic sound than beluga 

whales in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, 

the results from the Beaufort Sea 

surveys do not directly relate to 

potential reactions of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales. Also, due to the dispersed 

distribution of beluga whales in Cook 

Inlet during winter and the 

concentration of beluga whales in upper 

Cook Inlet from late April through early 

fall, belugas would likely occur in small 

numbers in the majority of Apache’s 

proposed survey area during the 

majority of Apache’s annual operational 

timeframe of March through December. 

For the same reason, it is unlikely that 

animals would be exposed to received 

levels capable of causing injury. 

Taking into account the mitigation 

measures that are planned, effects on 

cetaceans are generally expected to be 

restricted to avoidance of a limited area 

around the survey operation and shortterm changes in behavior, falling within 

the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B 

harassment’’. Animals are not expected 

to permanently abandon any area that is 

surveyed, and any behaviors that are 

interrupted during the activity are 

expected to resume once the activity 

ceases. Only a small portion of marine 

mammal habitat will be affected at any 

time, and other areas within Cook Inlet 

will be available for necessary biological 

functions. In addition, NMFS proposes 

to seasonally restrict seismic survey 

operations in locations known to be 

important for beluga whale feeding, 

calving, or nursing. The primary 

location for these biological life 

functions occur in the Susitna Delta 

region of upper Cook Inlet. NMFS 

proposes to implement a 16 km (10 mi) 

seasonal exclusion from seismic survey 

operations in this region from April 15- 

October 15. The highest concentrations 

of belugas are typically found in this 

area from early May through September 

each year. NMFS has incorporated a 2- 

week buffer on each end of this seasonal 

use timeframe to account for any 

anomalies in distribution and marine 

mammal usage. 

Mitigation measures such as 

controlled vessel speed, dedicated 

marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, 

and shutdowns or power downs when 

marine mammals are seen within 

defined ranges designed both to avoid 

injury and disturbance will further 

reduce short-term reactions and 

minimize any effects on hearing 

sensitivity. In all cases, the effects of the 

seismic survey are expected to be shortterm, with no lasting biological 

consequence. Therefore, the exposure of 

cetaceans to sounds produced by 

Apache’s proposed seismic survey 

operation is not anticipated to have an 

effect on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival of the affected species or 

stocks. 

Some individual pinnipeds may be 

exposed to sound from the proposed 

seismic surveys more than once during 

the timeframe of the project. Taking into 

account the mitigation measures that are 

planned, effects on pinnipeds are 

generally expected to be restricted to 

avoidance of a limited area around the 

survey operation and short-term 

changes in behavior, falling within the 

MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B 

harassment’’. Animals are not expected 

to permanently abandon any area that is 

surveyed, and any behaviors that are 

interrupted during the activity are 

expected to resume once the activity 

ceases. Only a small portion of pinniped 

habitat will be affected at any time, and 

other areas within Cook Inlet will be 

available for necessary biological 

functions. In addition, the area where 

the survey will take place is not known 

to be an important location where 

pinnipeds haul out. The closest known 

haul-out site is located on Kalgin Island, 

which is about 22 km from the 

McArther River. More recently, some 

large congregations of harbor seals have 

been observed hauling out in upper 

Cook Inlet. However, mitigation 

measures and restrictions will be 

implemented to help reduce impacts to 

the animals. Therefore, the exposure of 

pinnipeds to sounds produced by this 

phase of Apache’s proposed seismic 

survey is not anticipated to have an 

effect on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival on those species or stocks. 

The addition of nine vessels, and 

noise due to vessel operations 

associated with the seismic survey, 

would not be outside the present 

experience of marine mammals in Cook 

Inlet, although levels may increase 

locally. Given the large number of 

vessels in Cook Inlet and the apparent 

habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet 

beluga whales and the other marine 

mammals that may occur in the area, 

vessel activity and noise is not expected 

to have effects that could cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in 

this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated 

Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although 

some disturbance is possible to food 

sources of marine mammals, the 

impacts are anticipated to be minor 

enough as to not affect annual rates of 

recruitment or survival of marine 

mammals in the area. Based on the size 

of Cook Inlet where feeding by marine 

mammals occurs versus the localized 

area of the marine survey activities, any 

missed feeding opportunities in the 

direct project area would be minor 

based on the fact that other feeding 

areas exist elsewhere. Additionally, 

seismic survey operations will not occur 

in the primary beluga feeding and 

calving habitat during times of high use 

by those animals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total annual marine mammal 

take from Apache’s proposed seismic 

survey will have a negligible impact on 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9534 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

The requested takes proposed to be 

authorized annually represent 9.6 

percent of the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

population of approximately 312 

animals (Allen and Angliss, 2014), 0.71 

percent of the Alaska resident stock and 

2.31 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Island and Bering Sea stock of 

killer whales (1,123 residents and 345 

transients), 0.11 percent of the Gulf of 

Alaska stock of approximately 31,046 

harbor porpoises, and 0.005 percent of 

the eastern North Pacific stock of 

approximately 19,126 gray whales. The 

take requests presented for harbor seals 

represent 9.7 percent of the Cook Inlet/ 

Shelikof stock of approximately 22,900 

animals. The requested takes proposed 

for Steller sea lions represent 0.09 

percent of the western stock of 

approximately 79,300 animals. These 

take estimates represent the percentage 

of each species or stock that could be 

taken by Level B behavioral harassment. 

NMFS finds that any incidental take 

reasonably likely to result annually from 

the effects of the proposed activities, as 

proposed to be mitigated through this 

rulemaking and LOA process, will be 

limited to small numbers of the affected 

species or stock. In addition to the 

quantitative methods used to estimate 

take, NMFS also considered qualitative 

factors that further support the ‘‘small 

numbers’’ determination, including: (1) 

The seasonal distribution and habitat 

use patterns of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales, which suggest that for much of 

the time only a small portion of the 

population would be accessible to 

impacts from Apache’s activity, as most 

animals are found in the Susitna Delta 

region of Upper Cook Inlet from early 

May through September; (2) other 

cetacean species and Steller sea lions 

are not common in the seismic survey 

area; (3) the proposed mitigation 

requirements, which provide spatiotemporal limitations that avoid impacts 

to large numbers of belugas feeding and 

calving in the Susitna Delta and limit 

exposures to sound levels associated 

with Level B harassment; (4) the 

proposed monitoring requirements and 

mitigation measures described earlier in 

this document for all marine mammal 

species that will further reduce impacts 

and the amount of takes; and (5) 

monitoring results from previous 

activities that indicated low numbers of 

beluga whale sightings within the Level 

B disturbance exclusion zone and low 

levels of Level B harassment takes of 

other marine mammals. Therefore, 

NMFS determined that the numbers of 

animals likely to be taken is small. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

Relevant Subsistence Uses 

The subsistence harvest of marine 

mammals transcends the nutritional and 

economic values attributed to the 

animal and is an integral part of the 

cultural identity of the region’s Alaska 

Native communities. Inedible parts of 

the whale provide Native artisans with 

materials for cultural handicrafts, and 

the hunting itself perpetuates Native 

traditions by transmitting traditional 

skills and knowledge to younger 

generations (NOAA, 2007). 

The Cook Inlet beluga whale has 

traditionally been hunted by Alaska 

Natives for subsistence purposes. For 

several decades prior to the 1980s, the 

Native Village of Tyonek residents were 

the primary subsistence hunters of Cook 

Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s 

and 1990s, Alaska Natives from villages 

in the western, northwestern, and North 

Slope regions of Alaska either moved to 

or visited the south central region and 

participated in the yearly subsistence 

harvest (Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 

1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per 

year (range 21–123) were taken in this 

harvest, including those successfully 

taken for food and those struck and lost. 

NMFS has concluded that this number 

is high enough to account for the 

estimated 14 percent annual decline in 

the population during this time (Hobbs 

et al., 2008). Actual mortality may have 

been higher, given the difficulty of 

estimating the number of whales struck 

and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a 

moratorium was enacted (Public Law 

106–31) prohibiting the subsistence take 

of Cook Inlet beluga whales except 

through a cooperative agreement 

between NMFS and the affected Alaska 

Native organizations. Since the Cook 

Inlet beluga whale harvest was regulated 

in 1999 requiring cooperative 

agreements, five beluga whales have 

been struck and harvested. Those beluga 

whales were harvested in 2001 (one 

animal), 2002 (one animal), 2003 (one 

animal), and 2005 (two animals). The 

Native Village of Tyonek agreed not to 

hunt or request a hunt in 2007, when no 

co-management agreement was to be 

signed (NMFS, 2008a). 

On October 15, 2008, NMFS 

published a final rule that established 

long-term harvest limits on the Cook 

Inlet beluga whales that may be taken by 

Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes 

(73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits 

harvest for a 5-year period (2008–2012), 

if the average abundance for the Cook 

Inlet beluga whales from the prior five 

years (2003–2007) is below 350 whales. 

The next 5-year period that could allow 

for a harvest (2013–2017), would require 

the previous five-year average (2008– 

2012) to be above 350 whales. The 2008 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsistence 

Harvest Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(NMFS, 2008a) authorizes how many 

beluga whales can be taken during a 5- 

year interval based on the 5-year 

population estimates and 10-year 

measure of the population growth rate. 

Based on the 2008–2012 5-year 

abundance estimates, no hunt occurred 

between 2008 and 2012 (NMFS, 2008a). 

The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal 

Council, which managed the Alaska 

Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS, 

was disbanded by a unanimous vote of 

the Tribes’ representatives on June 20, 

2012. At this time, no harvest is 

expected in 2015 or, likely, in 2016. 

Residents of the Native Village of 

Tyonek are the primary subsistence 

users in the Knik Arm area. 

Data on the harvest of other marine 

mammals in Cook Inlet are lacking. 

Some data are available on the 

subsistence harvest of harbor seals, 

harbor porpoises, and killer whales in 

Alaska in the marine mammal stock 

assessments. However, these numbers 

are for the Gulf of Alaska including 

Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative 

of the harvest in Cook Inlet. 

There is a low level of subsistence 

hunting for harbor seals in Cook Inlet. 

Seal hunting occurs opportunistically 

among Alaska Natives who may be 

fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet 

near the mouths of the Susitna River, 

Beluga River, and Little Susitna River. 

Some data are available on the 

subsistence harvest of harbor seals, 

harbor porpoises, and killer whales in 

Alaska in the marine mammal stock 

assessments. However, these numbers 

are for the Gulf of Alaska including 

Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative 

of the harvest in Cook Inlet. Some 

detailed information on the subsistence 

harvest of harbor seals is available from 

past studies conducted by the Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game (Wolfe et 

al., 2009). In 2008, 33 harbor seals were 

taken for harvest in the Upper KenaiCook Inlet area. In the same study, 

reports from hunters stated that harbor 

seal populations in the area were 

increasing (28.6%) or remaining stable 

(71.4%). The specific hunting regions 

identified were Anchorage, Homer, 

Kenai, and Tyonek, and hunting 

generally peaks in March, September, 

and November (Wolfe et al., 2009). 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9535 

Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) also requires 

NMFS to determine that the taking will 

not have an unmitigable adverse effect 

on the availability of marine mammal 

species or stocks for subsistence use. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable adverse 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity: (1) 

That is likely to reduce the availability 

of the species to a level insufficient for 

a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: 

(i) Causing the marine mammals to 

abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) 

Directly displacing subsistence users; or 

(iii) Placing physical barriers between 

the marine mammals and the 

subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot 

be sufficiently mitigated by other 

measures to increase the availability of 

marine mammals to allow subsistence 

needs to be met. 

The primary concern is the 

disturbance of marine mammals through 

the introduction of anthropogenic sound 

into the marine environment during the 

proposed seismic survey. Marine 

mammals could be behaviorally 

harassed and either become more 

difficult to hunt or temporarily abandon 

traditional hunting grounds. However, 

the proposed seismic survey should not 

have any impacts to beluga harvests as 

none currently occur in Cook Inlet. 

Additionally, subsistence harvests of 

other marine mammal species are 

limited in Cook Inlet. 

Plan of Cooperation or Measures To 

Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

require LOA applicants for activities 

that take place in Arctic waters to 

provide a Plan of Cooperation or 

information that identifies what 

measures have been taken and/or will 

be taken to minimize adverse effects on 

the availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence purposes. NMFS regulations 

define Arctic waters as waters above 60° 

N. latitude. 

Since November 2010, Apache has 

met and continues to meet with many 

of the villages and traditional councils 

throughout the Cook Inlet region. 

During these meetings, no concerns 

have been raised regarding potential 

conflict with subsistence harvest. Past 

meetings have been held with 

Alexander Creek, Knikatnu, Native 

Village of Tyonek, Salamatof, Tyonek 

Native Corporation, Ninilchik 

Traditional Council, Ninilchik Native 

Association, Village of Eklutna, 

Kenaitze Indian Tribe, and Cook Inlet 

Region, Inc. 

Additionally, Apache met with the 

Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council 

(CIMMC) to describe the project 

activities and discuss subsistence 

concerns. The meeting provided 

information on the time, location, and 

features of the proposed program, 

opportunities for involvement by local 

people, potential impacts to marine 

mammals, and mitigation measures to 

avoid impacts. Discussions regarding 

marine seismic operations continued 

with the CIMMC until its disbandment. 

In 2014, Apache held meetings or 

discussions regarding project activities 

with the following entities: Native 

Village of Tyonek, Tyonek Native 

Corporation, Cook Inlet Region, Inc., 

Ninilchik Native Association, Ninilchik 

Tribal Council, Salamatof Native 

Association, Cook Inlet Keeper, Alaska 

Salmon Alliance, Upper Cook Inlet Drift 

Association, and the Kenai Peninsula 

Fisherman’s Association. Further, 

Apache has placed posters in local 

businesses, offices, and stores in nearby 

communities and published newspaper 

ads in the Peninsula Clarion. 

Apache has identified the following 

features that are intended to reduce 

impacts to subsistence users: 

• In-water seismic activities will 

follow mitigation procedures to 

minimize effects on the behavior of 

marine mammals and, therefore, 

opportunities for harvest by Alaska 

Native communities; and 

• Regional subsistence 

representatives may support recording 

marine mammal observations along 

with marine mammal biologists during 

the monitoring programs and will be 

provided with annual reports. 

Apache and NMFS recognize the 

importance of ensuring that ANOs and 

federally recognized tribes are informed, 

engaged, and involved during the 

permitting process and will continue to 

work with the ANOs and tribes to 

discuss operations and activities. On 

February 6, 2012, in response to 

requests for government-to-government 

consultations by the CIMMC and Native 

Village of Eklutna, NMFS met with 

representatives of these two groups and 

a representative from the Ninilchik. We 

engaged in a discussion about the 

proposed IHA for phase 1 of Apache’s 

seismic program, the MMPA process for 

issuing an IHA, concerns regarding 

Cook Inlet beluga whales, and how to 

achieve greater coordination with NMFS 

on issues that impact tribal concerns. 

NMFS contacted the local Native 

Villages to inform them of our receipt of 

an application from Apache to 

promulgate regulations and issue 

subsequent annual LOAs in August 

2014. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Preliminary Determination 

The project will not have any effect 

on beluga whale harvests because no 

beluga harvest will take place in 2015, 

nor is one likely to occur in the other 

years that would be covered by the 5- 

year regulations and associated LOAs. 

Additionally, the proposed seismic 

survey area is not an important native 

subsistence site for other subsistence 

species of marine mammals. Also, 

because of the relatively small 

proportion of marine mammals utilizing 

Cook Inlet, the number harvested is 

expected to be extremely low. 

Therefore, because the proposed 

program would result in only temporary 

disturbances, the seismic program 

would not impact the availability of 

these other marine mammal species for 

subsistence uses. 

The timing and location of 

subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor 

seals may coincide with Apache’s 

project, but because this subsistence 

hunt is conducted opportunistically and 

at such a low level (NMFS, 2013c), 

Apache’s program is not expected to 

have an impact on the subsistence use 

of harbor seals. 

NMFS anticipates that any effects 

from Apache’s proposed seismic survey 

on marine mammals, especially harbor 

seals and Cook Inlet beluga whales, 

which are or have been taken for 

subsistence uses, would be short-term, 

site specific, and limited to 

inconsequential changes in behavior 

and mild stress responses. NMFS does 

not anticipate that the authorized taking 

of affected species or stocks will reduce 

the availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (2) directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (3) placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated 

by other measures to increase the 

availability of marine mammals to allow 

subsistence needs to be met. Based on 

the description of the specified activity, 

the measures described to minimize 

adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence 

purposes, and the proposed mitigation 

and monitoring measures, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from Apache’s 

proposed activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are two marine mammal 

species listed as endangered under the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ESA with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the proposed project area: 

The Cook Inlet beluga whale and the 

western DPS of Steller sea lion. In 

addition, the proposed action would 

occur within designated critical habitat 

for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS’s 

Permits and Conservation Division has 

initiated consultation with NMFS’ 

Alaska Region Protected Resources 

Division under section 7 of the ESA on 

the promulgation of 5-year regulations 

and the subsequent issuance of annual 

LOAs to Apache under section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. This 

consultation will be concluded prior to 

issuing any final rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS has prepared a Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

issuance of regulations and associated 

LOAs to Apache for the proposed oil 

and gas exploration seismic survey 

program in Cook Inlet. The Draft EA has 

been made available for public comment 

concurrently with this proposed rule 

(see ADDRESSES). NMFS will either 

finalize the EA and prepare a FONSI or 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement prior to issuance of the final 

rule (if issued). 

Classification 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Chief Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce has certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Apache Alaska Corporation is the only 

entity that would be subject to the 

requirements in these proposed 

regulations. Apache Alaska Corporation 

is a part of Apache Corporation, which 

has operations and locations in the 

United States, Canada, Australia, Egypt, 

and the United Kingdom (North Sea), 

employs thousands of people 

worldwide, and has a market value in 

the billions of dollars. Therefore, 

Apache is not a small governmental 

jurisdiction, small organization, or small 

business, as defined by the RFA. 

Because of this certification, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and none has been prepared. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This proposed rule contains collectionof-information requirements subject to 

the provisions of the PRA. These 

requirements have been approved by 

OMB under control number 0648–0151 

and include applications for regulations, 

subsequent LOAs, and reports. Send 

comments regarding any aspect of this 

data collection, including suggestions 

for reducing the burden, to NMFS and 

the OMB Desk Officer (see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, 

Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seafood, Transportation. 

Dated: February 9, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 217—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE 

MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO 

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 217 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Subpart N is added to part 217 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart N—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook Inlet, 

Alaska 

Sec. 

217.130 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

217.131 Effective dates. 

217.132 Permissible methods of taking. 

217.133 Prohibitions. 

217.134 Mitigation requirements. 

217.135 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

217.136 Letters of Authorization. 

217.137 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

Subpart N—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska 

§ 217.130 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to Apache Alaska Corporation 

(Apache) and those persons it 

authorizes to conduct activities on its 

behalf for the taking of marine mammals 

that occurs in the area outlined in 

paragraph (b) of this section and that 

occurs incidental to oil and gas 

exploration seismic survey program 

operations. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

Apache may be authorized in a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs 

within the intertidal transition zone and 

marine environment of Cook Inlet, 

Alaska. 

§ 217.131 Effective dates. 

[Reserved] 

§ 217.132 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.136, 

the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter 

‘‘Apache’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in 

§ 217.130(b), provided the activity is in 

compliance with all terms, conditions, 

and requirements of the regulations in 

this subpart and the appropriate LOA. 

(b) The incidental take of marine 

mammals under the activities identified 

in § 217.130(a) is limited to the 

indicated number of takes on an annual 

basis of the following species and is 

limited to Level B harassment: 

(1) Cetaceans: 

(i) Beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas)—30; 

(ii) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena)—35; 

(iii) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—10; 

(iv) Gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus)—2; 

(2) Pinnipeds: 

(i) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)— 

2,211; and 

(ii) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus)—75. 

§ 217.133 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 217.130 and 

authorized by a LOA issued under 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.136, 

no person in connection with the 

activities described in § 217.130 of this 

chapter may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 217.132(b); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 217.132(b) other than by 

incidental Level B harassment; 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 217.132(b) if the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines 

such taking results in more than a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stocks of such marine mammal; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 217.132(b) if NMFS determines 

such taking results in an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the species or stock 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9537 

of such marine mammal for taking for 

subsistence uses; or 

(e) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or an LOA issued under 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.136. 

§ 217.134 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 217.130(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in any LOA issued 

under § 216.106 of this chapter and 

§ 217.136 must be implemented. These 

mitigation measures include but are not 

limited to: 

(a) General conditions: (1) If any 

marine mammal species not listed in 

§ 217.132(b) are observed during 

conduct of the activities identified in 

§ 217.130(a) and are likely to be exposed 

to sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater 

than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms), 

Apache must avoid such exposure (e.g., 

by altering speed or course or by power 

down or shutdown of the sound source). 

(2) If the allowable number of takes on 

an annual basis listed for any marine 

mammal species in § 217.132(b) is 

exceeded, or if any marine mammal 

species not listed in § 217.132(b) is 

exposed to SPLs greater than or equal to 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms), Apache shall 

immediately cease survey operations 

involving the use of active sound 

sources (e.g., airguns and pingers), 

record the observation, and notify 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources. 

(3) Apache must notify the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS at least 48 

hours prior to the start of seismic survey 

activities each year. 

(4) Apache shall conduct briefings as 

necessary between vessel crews, marine 

mammal monitoring team, and other 

relevant personnel prior to the start of 

all survey activity, and when new 

personnel join the work, in order to 

explain responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

(b) Visual monitoring: (1) Apache 

shall establish zones corresponding to 

the area around the source within which 

SPLs are expected to equal or exceed 

relevant acoustic criteria. These zones 

shall be established as exclusion zones 

(shutdown zones) to avoid Level A 

harassment of any marine mammal, 

Level B harassment of beluga whales, or 

Level B harassment of aggregations of 

five or more killer whales or harbor 

porpoises. For all marine mammals 

other than beluga whales or aggregations 

of five or more harbor porpoises or killer 

whales, the Level B harassment zone 

shall be established as a disturbance 

zone and monitored as described in 

§ 217.135(a)(1). These zones shall be 

defined as follows: 

(i) For the full-power airgun array 

(2,400 in3), the Level B harassment zone 

(160 dB re 1 mPa [rms]) shall be of 9,500 

m radial distance, the Level A 

harassment zone for cetaceans (180 dB 

re 1 mPa [rms]) shall be of 1,400 m radial 

distance; and the Level A harassment 

for pinnipeds (190 dB re 1 mPa [rms]) 

shall be of 380 m radial distance. 

(ii) For the shallow-water source (440 

in3), the Level B harassment zone (160 

dB re 1 mPa [rms]) shall be of 2,500 m 

radial distance, the Level A harassment 

zone for cetaceans (180 dB re 1 mPa 

[rms]) shall be of 310 m radial distance; 

and the Level A harassment for 

pinnipeds (190 dB re 1 mPa [rms]) shall 

be of 100 m radial distance. 

(iii) For the mitigation gun (10 in3), 

the Level B harassment zone (160 dB re 

1 mPa [rms]) shall be of 280 m radial 

distance and a single Level A 

harassment zone of 10 m radial distance 

shall be established. 

(iv) During use of pingers, Apache 

shall establish a Level B harassment 

zone (160 dB re 1 mPa [rms]) of 25 m 

radial distance. 

(2) Vessel-based monitoring for 

marine mammals must be conducted 

before, during, and after all activity 

identified in § 217.130(a) that is 

conducted during daylight hours 

(defined as nautical twilight-dawn to 

nautical twilight-dusk), and shall begin 

not less than thirty minutes prior to the 

beginning of survey activity, continue 

throughout all survey activity that 

occurs during daylight hours, and 

conclude not less than thirty minutes 

following the cessation of survey 

activity. Apache shall use a sufficient 

number of qualified protected species 

observers (PSO) to ensure one hundred 

percent visual observation coverage 

during all periods of daylight survey 

operations with maximum limits of four 

consecutive hours on watch and twelve 

hours of watch time per day per PSO. 

One PSO must be a supervisory field 

crew leader. A minimum of two 

qualified PSOs shall be on watch at all 

times during daylight hours on each 

source and support vessel (except 

during brief meal and restroom breaks, 

when at least one PSO shall be on 

watch). 

(i) A qualified PSO is a third-party 

trained biologist, with prior experience 

as a PSO during seismic surveys and the 

following minimum qualifications: 

(A) Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

(B) Advanced education in biological 

science or related field (undergraduate 

degree or higher required); 

(C) Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols (this 

may include academic experience); 

(D) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

(E) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the survey operation to 

provide for personal safety during 

observations; 

(F) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when survey activities were 

conducted; dates and times when 

survey activities were suspended to 

avoid exposure of marine mammals to 

sound within defined exclusion zones; 

and marine mammal behavior; and 

(G) 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. 

(ii) PSOs must have access to 

binoculars (7 × 50 with reticle 

rangefinder; Fujinon or equivalent 

quality), laser rangefinder, and bigeye 

binoculars (25 × 150) and shall scan the 

surrounding waters from the best 

available suitable vantage point with the 

naked eye and binoculars. At least one 

PSO shall scan the surrounding waters 

during all daylight hours using bigeye 

binoculars. 

(iii) PSOs shall also conduct visual 

monitoring 

(A) While the airgun array and nodes 

are being deployed or recovered from 

the water and 

(B) During periods of good visibility 

when the sound sources are not 

operating for comparison of animal 

abundance and behavior. 

(iv) PSOs shall be on watch at all 

times during daylight hours when 

survey operations are being conducted, 

unless conditions (e.g., fog, rain, 

darkness) make observations 

impossible. The lead PSO on duty shall 

make this determination. If conditions 

deteriorate during daylight hours such 

that the sea surface observations are 

halted, visual observations must resume 

as soon as conditions permit. 

(3) Survey activity must begin during 

periods of good visibility, which is 

defined as daylight hours when weather 

(e.g., fog, rain) does not obscure the 

relevant exclusion zones within 

maximum line-of-sight. In order to begin 

survey activity, the relevant exclusion 

zones must be clear of marine mammals 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9538 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for not less than thirty minutes. If 

marine mammals are present within or 

are observed approaching the relevant 

exclusion zone during this thirty-minute 

pre-clearance period, the start of survey 

activity shall be delayed until the 

animals are observed leaving the zone of 

their own volition and/or outside the 

zone or until fifteen minutes (for 

pinnipeds and harbor porpoises) or 

thirty minutes (for beluga whales, killer 

whales, and gray whales) have elapsed 

without observing the animal. While 

activities will be permitted to continue 

during low-visibility conditions, they 

must have been initiated following 

proper clearance of the exclusion zone 

under acceptable observation conditions 

and must be restarted, if shut down for 

greater than ten minutes for any reason, 

using the appropriate exclusion zone 

clearance procedures. 

(c) Ramp-up and shutdown: (1) 

Survey activity involving the full-power 

airgun array or shallow-water source 

must be initiated, following appropriate 

clearance of the exclusion zone, using 

accepted ramp-up procedures. Ramp-up 

is required at the start of survey activity 

and at any time following a shutdown 

of ten minutes or greater. Ramp-up shall 

be implemented by starting the smallest 

single gun available and increasing the 

operational array volume in a defined 

sequence such that the source level of 

the array shall increase in steps not 

exceeding approximately 6 dB per fiveminute period. PSOs shall continue 

monitoring the relevant exclusion zones 

throughout the ramp-up process and, if 

marine mammals are observed within or 

approaching the zones, a power down or 

shutdown shall be implemented and 

ramp-up restarted following appropriate 

exclusion zone clearance procedures as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(2) Apache must shut down or power 

down the source, as appropriate, 

immediately upon detection of any 

marine mammal approaching or within 

the relevant Level A exclusion zone or 

upon detection of any beluga whale or 

aggregation of five or more harbor 

porpoises or killer whales approaching 

or within the relevant Level B exclusion 

zone. Power down is defined as 

reduction of total airgun array volume 

from either the full-power airgun array 

(2,400 in3) or the shallow-water source 

(440 in3) to a single mitigation gun 

(maximum 10 in3). Power down must 

be followed by shutdown in the event 

that the animal(s) approach the 

exclusion zones defined for the 

mitigation gun. Detection of any marine 

mammal within an exclusion zone shall 

be recorded and reported weekly, as 

described in § 217.135(c)(2), to NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources. 

(i) When a requirement for power 

down or shutdown is triggered, the call 

for implementation shall be made by the 

lead PSO on duty and Apache shall 

comply. Any disagreement with a 

determination made by the lead PSO on 

duty shall be discussed after 

implementation of power down or 

shutdown, as appropriate. 

(ii) Following a power down or 

shutdown not exceeding ten minutes, 

Apache shall follow the ramp-up 

procedure described in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section to return to full-power 

operation. 

(iii) Following a shutdown exceeding 

ten minutes, Apache shall follow the 

exclusion zone clearance, described in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and 

ramp-up procedures, described in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, before 

returning to full-power operation. 

(3) Survey operations may be 

conducted during low-visibility 

conditions (e.g., darkness, fog, rain) only 

when such activity was initiated 

following proper clearance of the 

exclusion zone under acceptable 

observation conditions, as described in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and 

there has not been a shutdown 

exceeding ten minutes. Following a 

shutdown exceeding ten minutes during 

low-visibility conditions, survey 

operations must be suspended until the 

return of good visibility. During lowvisibility conditions, vessel bridge crew 

must implement shutdown procedures 

if marine mammals are observed. 

(d) Additional mitigation: (1) The 

mitigation airgun must be operated at 

approximately one shot per minute, and 

use of the gun may not exceed three 

consecutive hours. Ramp-up may not be 

used to circumvent the three-hour 

limitation on mitigation gun usage. 

Usage of the mitigation gun shall be 

limited by when feasible, employing a 

turn protocol of complete shutdown 

followed by pre-clearance and ramp-up 

such that full power is reached prior to 

returning to trackline (rather than using 

the mitigation gun throughout the turn) 

and turning on mitigation gun at least 

thirty minutes prior to nautical-twilight 

dusk when nighttime ramp-up is 

anticipated. 

(2) Apache may alter speed or course 

during seismic operations if a marine 

mammal, based on its position and 

relative motion, appears likely to enter 

the relevant exclusion zone and such 

alteration may result in the animal not 

entering the zone. If speed or course 

alteration is not safe or practicable, or if 

after alteration the marine mammal still 

appears likely to enter the zone, power 

down or shutdown must be 

implemented. 

(3) Apache shall not operate airguns 

within 16 km of the mean higher high 

water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta 

(Beluga River to the Little Susitna River) 

between April 15 and October 15. 

(4) Apache must suspend survey 

operations if a live marine mammal 

stranding is reported within 19 km of 

the seismic source vessel coincident to 

or within 72 hours of survey activities 

involving the use of airguns, regardless 

of any suspected cause of the stranding. 

A live stranding event is defined as a 

marine mammal found on a beach or 

shore and unable to return to the water; 

on a beach or shore and able to return 

to the water but in apparent need of 

medical attention; or in the water but 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance. 

(i) Apache must immediately 

implement a shutdown of the airgun 

array upon becoming aware of the live 

stranding event. 

(ii) Shutdown procedures shall 

remain in effect until NMFS determines 

that all live animals involved in the 

stranding have left the area (either of 

their own volition or following 

responder assistance). 

(iii) Within 48 hours of the 

notification of the live stranding event, 

Apache must inform NMFS where and 

when they were operating airguns and 

at what discharge volumes. 

(iv) Apache must appoint a contact 

who can be reached at any time for 

notification of live stranding events. 

Immediately upon notification of the 

live stranding event, this person must 

order the immediate shutdown of the 

survey operations. 

§ 217.135 Requirements for monitoring 

and reporting. 

(a) Visual monitoring program: (1) 

Disturbance zones shall be established 

as described in § 217.134(b)(1), and 

shall encompass the Level B harassment 

zones not defined as exclusion zones in 

§ 217.134(b)(1). These zones shall be 

monitored to maximum line-of-sight 

distance from established vessel- and 

shore-based monitoring locations. If 

marine mammals other than beluga 

whales or aggregations of five or greater 

harbor porpoises or killer whales are 

observed within the disturbance zone, 

the observation shall be recorded and 

communicated as necessary to other 

PSOs responsible for implementing 

shutdown/power down requirements 

and any behaviors documented. 

(2) Apache shall utilize a shore-based 

station to visually monitor for marine 

mammals. The shore-based station must 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9539 

be staffed by PSOs under the same 

minimum requirements described in 

§ 217.134(b)(2), must be located 

appropriately to monitor the area 

ensonified by that day’s survey 

operations, must be of sufficient height 

to observe marine mammals within the 

ensonified area; and must be equipped 

with pedestal-mounted bigeye (25 × 

150) binoculars. The shore-based PSOs 

shall scan the defined exclusion and 

disturbance zones prior to, during, and 

after survey operations, and shall be in 

contact with vessel-based PSOs via 

radio to communicate sightings of 

marine mammals approaching or within 

the defined zones. 

(3) When weather conditions allow 

for safety, Apache shall utilize 

helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft to 

conduct daily aerial surveys of the 

project area prior to the commencement 

of operations in order to identify 

locations of beluga whale aggregations 

(five or more whales) or cow-calf pairs. 

Daily surveys shall be scheduled to 

occur at least thirty but no more than 

120 minutes prior to any seismic 

survey-related activities (including but 

not limited to node laying/retrieval or 

airgun operations) and shall also occur 

on days when there may be no survey 

activities. Aerial surveys shall occur 

along and parallel to the shoreline 

throughout the project area as well as 

the eastern and western shores of 

central and northern Cook Inlet in the 

vicinity of the survey area. 

(i) When weather conditions allow for 

safety, aerial surveys shall fly at an 

altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event 

of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft 

shall attempt to maintain a lateral 

distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the 

animal(s). Aircraft shall avoid 

approaching marine mammals head-on, 

flying over or passing the shadow of the 

aircraft over the animal(s). 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(4) PSOs must use NMFS-approved 

data forms and shall record the 

following information when a marine 

mammal is observed: 

(i) Effort information, including vessel 

name; PSO name; survey type; date; 

time when survey (observing and 

activities) began and ended; vessel 

location (latitude/longitude) when 

survey (observing and activities) began 

and ended; vessel heading and speed 

(knots). 

(ii) Environmental conditions while 

on visual survey, including wind speed 

and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

Beaufort wind force, swell height, 

weather conditions, ice cover (percent 

of surface, ice type, and distance to ice 

if applicable), cloud cover, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon (in 

distance). 

(iii) Factors that may be contributing 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions change (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions). 

(iv) Activity information, such as the 

number and volume of airguns 

operating in the array, tow depth of the 

array, and any other notes of 

significance (e.g., pre-ramp-up survey, 

ramp-up, power down, shutdown, 

testing, shooting, ramp-up completion, 

end of operations, nodes). 

(v) When a marine mammal is 

observed, the following information 

shall be recorded: Watch status (sighting 

made by PSO on/off effort, 

opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/

platform, aerial, land); PSO who sighted 

the animal; time of sighting; vessel 

location at time of sighting; water depth; 

direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); direction of animal’s travel 

relative to the vessel (drawing is 

preferred); pace of the animal; estimated 

distance to the animal and its heading 

relative to vessel at initial sighting; 

identification of the animal (genus/

species/sub-species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified; also 

note the composition of the group if 

there is a mix of species); estimated 

number of animals (high/low/best); 

estimated number of animals by cohort 

(when possible; adults, yearlings, 

juveniles, calves, group composition, 

etc.); description (as many 

distinguishing features as possible of 

each individual seen, including length, 

shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, 

shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of 

head, and blow characteristics); detailed 

behavioral observations (e.g., number of 

blows, number of surfaces, breaching, 

spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling; 

as explicit and detailed as possible; note 

any observed changes in behavior); 

animal’s closest point of approach and/ 

or closest distance from the center point 

of the airgun array; platform activity at 

time of sighting (e.g., deploying, 

recovering, testing, shooting, data 

acquisition, other). 

(vi) Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, power down, shutdown, 

ramp-up, speed or course alteration); 

time and location of the action should 

also be recorded. 

(vii) If mitigation action was not 

implemented when required, 

description of circumstances. 

(viii) Description of all use of 

mitigation gun. 

(5) The data listed in 

§ 217.135(a)(4)(i–ii) shall also be 

recorded at the start and end of each 

watch and during a watch whenever 

there is a change in one or more of the 

variables. 

(b) Onshore seismic effort: (1) When 

conducting onshore seismic effort, in 

the event that a shot hole charge depth 

of 10 m is not consistently attainable 

due to loose sediments collapsing the 

bore hole, a sound source verification 

study must be conducted on the new 

land-based charge depths. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(c) Reporting: 

(1) Apache must immediately report 

to NMFS at such time as 25 total beluga 

whales (cumulative total during period 

of validity of LOA) have been detected 

within the 160-dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

exclusion zone, regardless of shutdown 

or power down procedures 

implemented, during seismic survey 

operations. 

(2) Apache must submit a weekly 

field report to NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources each Thursday during the 

weeks when in-water seismic survey 

activities take place. The weekly field 

reports shall summarize species 

detected (number, location, distance 

from seismic vessel, behavior), in-water 

activity occurring at the time of the 

sighting (discharge volume of array at 

time of sighting, seismic activity at time 

of sighting, visual plots of sightings, and 

number of power downs and 

shutdowns), behavioral reactions to inwater activities, and the number of 

marine mammals exposed to sound at or 

exceeding relevant thresholds. 

(3) Apache must submit a monthly 

report, no later than the fifteenth of each 

month, to NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources for all months during which 

in-water seismic survey activities occur. 

These reports must summarize the 

information described in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section and shall also 

include: 

(i) An estimate of the number (by 

species) of: 

(A) Pinnipeds that have been exposed 

to sound (based on visual observation) 

at received levels greater than or equal 

to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) and/or 190 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) with a discussion of any 

specific behaviors those individuals 

exhibited; and 

(B) Cetaceans that have been exposed 

to sound (based on visual observation) 

at received levels greater than or equal 

to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) and/or 180 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) with a discussion of any 

specific behaviors those individuals 

exhibited. 

(ii) A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

terms and conditions of the Biological 

Opinion’s Incidental Take Statement 

and mitigation measures of the LOA. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9540 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

For the Biological Opinion, the report 

shall confirm the implementation of 

each Term and Condition, as well as any 

conservation recommendations, and 

describe their effectiveness in 

minimizing the adverse effects of the 

action on Endangered Species Act-listed 

marine mammals. 

(4) Apache shall submit an annual 

report to NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources covering a given calendar 

year within ninety days of the last day 

of airgun operation or at least sixty days 

before the requested date of any 

subsequent LOA, whichever comes first. 

The annual report shall include 

summaries of the information described 

in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and 

shall also include: 

(i) Summaries of monitoring effort 

(e.g., total hours, total distances, and 

marine mammal distribution through 

the study period, accounting for sea 

state and other factors affecting 

visibility and detectability of marine 

mammals); 

(ii) Analyses of the effects of various 

factors influencing detectability of 

marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number 

of observers, and fog/glare); 

(iii) Species composition, occurrence, 

and distribution of marine mammal 

sightings, including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 

determinable), group sizes, and ice 

cover; 

(iv) Analyses of the effects of survey 

operations; and 

(v) Sighting rates of marine mammals 

during periods with and without 

seismic survey activities (and other 

variables that could affect detectability), 

such as: 

(A) Initial sighting distances versus 

survey activity state; 

(B) Closest point of approach versus 

survey activity state; 

(C) Observed behaviors and types of 

movements versus survey activity state; 

(D) Numbers of sightings/individuals 

seen versus survey activity state; 

(E) Distribution around the source 

vessels versus survey activity state; and 

(F) Numbers of marine mammals (by 

species) detected in the 160, 180, and 

190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) zones. 

(5) Apache shall submit a final annual 

report to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, within thirty days 

after receiving comments from NMFS on 

the draft report. 

(d) Notification of dead or injured 

marine mammals. (1) In the 

unanticipated event that the specified 

activity clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a manner prohibited 

by this Authorization, such as an injury 

(Level A harassment), serious injury, or 

mortality, Apache shall immediately 

cease the specified activities and report 

the incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

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

longitude) of the incident; 

(ii) Description of the incident; 

(iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

(iv) Description of marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(v) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(vi) Status of all sound source use in 

the 24 hours preceding the incident; 

(vii) Water depth; 

(viii) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(ix) Photographs or video footage of 

the animal(s). Activities shall not 

resume until NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with Apache to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Apache may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

(2) In the event that Apache discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (e.g., in 

less than a moderate state of 

decomposition), Apache shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. The report must 

include the same information identified 

in § 217.135(d)(1). If the observed 

marine mammal is dead, activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. If the 

observed marine mammal is injured, 

measures described in § 217.134(d)(4) 

must be implemented. NMFS will work 

with Apache to determine whether 

additional mitigation measures or 

modifications to the activities are 

appropriate. 

(3) In the event that Apache discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the LOA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, scavenger damage), 

Apache shall report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of 

the discovery. Apache shall provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS. If the observed 

marine mammal is dead, activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. If the 

observed marine mammal is injured, 

measures described in § 217.134(d)(4) 

must be implemented. In this case, 

NMFS will notify Apache when 

activities may resume. 

§ 217.136 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

Apache must apply for and obtain a 

LOA. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 

time not to exceed the expiration date 

of these regulations. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to the 

expiration date of these regulations, 

Apache may apply for and obtain a 

renewal of the Letter of Authorization. 

(d) In the event of projected changes 

to the activity or to mitigation and 

monitoring measures required by an 

LOA, Apache must apply for and obtain 

a modification of the Letter of 

Authorization as described in § 217.137. 

(e) The LOA shall set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact (i.e., 

mitigation) on the species, its habitat, 

and on the availability of the species for 

subsistence uses; and 

(3) Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based 

on a determination that the level of 

taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations. 

(g) Notice of issuance or denial of a 

LOA shall be published in the Federal 

Register within thirty days of a 

determination. 

§ 217.137 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of 

this chapter and § 217.136 for the 

activity identified in § 217.130(a) shall 

be renewed or modified upon request by 

the applicant, provided that: 

(1) The proposed specified activity 

and mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures, as well as the 

anticipated impacts, are the same as 

those described and analyzed for these 

regulations (excluding changes made 

pursuant to the adaptive management 

provision in § 217.137(c)(1)), and 

(2) NMFS determines that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required by the previous LOA 

under these regulations were 

implemented. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9541 

(b) For a LOA modification or renewal 

requests by the applicant that include 

changes to the activity or the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting (excluding 

changes made pursuant to the adaptive 

management provision in 

§ 217.137(c)(1)) that do not change the 

findings made for the regulations or 

result in no more than a minor change 

in the total estimated number of takes 

(or distribution by species or years), 

NMFS may publish a notice of proposed 

LOA in the Federal Register, including 

the associated analysis of the change, 

and solicit public comment before 

issuing the LOA. 

(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of 

this chapter and § 217.136 for the 

activity identified in § 217.130(a) may 

be modified by NMFS under the 

following circumstances: 

(1) Adaptive management—NMFS 

may modify (including augment) the 

existing mitigation, monitoring, or 

reporting measures (after consulting 

with Apache regarding the practicability 

of the modifications) if doing so creates 

a reasonable likelihood of more 

effectively accomplishing the goals of 

the mitigation and monitoring set forth 

in the preamble for these regulations. 

(i) Possible sources of data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures in an LOA: 

(A) Results from Apache’s monitoring 

from the previous year(s). 

(B) Results from other marine 

mammal and/or sound research or 

studies. 

(C) Any information that reveals 

marine mammals may have been taken 

in a manner, extent or number not 

authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent LOAs. 

(ii) If, through adaptive management, 

the modifications to the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting measures are 

substantial, NMFS will publish a notice 

of proposed LOA in the Federal 

Register and solicit public comment. 

(2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines 

that an emergency exists that poses a 

significant risk to the well-being of the 

species or stocks of marine mammals 

specified in § 217.132(b), an LOA may 

be modified without prior notice or 

opportunity for public comment. Notice 

would be published in the Federal 

Register within thirty days of the action. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03048 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2