Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14913 

Background 

On March 13, 2015, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

announced the availability of NMFS’ 

DEIS concerning the Makah Indian 

Tribe’s February 2005 request to resume 

limited hunting of ENP gray whales in 

the coastal portion of the Tribe’s usual 

and accustomed fishing grounds, off the 

coast of Washington State, for 

ceremonial and subsistence purposes. 

Informed by information received 

during public scoping, this DEIS 

contains updates and a new set of 

alternatives compared to a previous 

DEIS released on May 9, 2008 (73 FR 

26394) and later terminated on May 21, 

2012 (77 FR 29967). The Tribe’s 

proposed action stems from the 1855 

Treaty of Neah Bay, which expressly 

secures the Makah Tribe’s right to hunt 

whales. To exercise that right, the Tribe 

is seeking authorization from NMFS 

under the MMPA and the Whaling 

Convention Act. The release of this new 

DEIS is one of several steps NMFS will 

undertake to evaluate the Tribe’s 

request. 

The DEIS, prepared pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

considers various alternatives to the 

Tribe’s proposed action. To develop the 

full range of action alternatives—five in 

total—we considered the principal 

components associated with a hunt, 

including: The time when whale 

hunting would occur; the area where 

whale hunting would occur; the annual 

and six-year limits on the number of 

whales harvested, struck, and struck 

and lost; cessation of whale hunting if 

a predetermined number of identified 

whales (i.e., included in a photographic 

catalog of whales from the Pacific Coast 

Feeding Group area) were harvested; 

and the method of hunting. This DEIS 

addresses a number of resources 

identified for review during both 

internal and public scoping, including: 

Water quality, marine habitat and 

species, eastern and western North 

Pacific gray whales, other wildlife 

species, economics, environmental 

justice, social environment, cultural 

resources, ceremonial and subsistence 

resources, noise, aesthetics, 

transportation, public services, public 

safety, and human health. 

The DEIS provides an important 

opportunity for the public to formally 

comment on the Tribe’s proposal and 

the various alternatives. These 

comments, in conjunction with 

considerations described in the DEIS, 

will provide key information to assist 

NMFS with its final decision on the 

Tribe’s request. 

Access to Government Building 

For access to the Federal government 

building in Seattle, Washington, the 

Department of Commerce Western 

Region Security Office has advised that 

all attendees must have valid 

government-issued identification (e.g., 

driver’s license, tribal identification 

card, or passport). Prospective attendees 

for the public meeting in the NOAA 

Auditorium in Seattle, Washington 

should submit their first and last names 

and affiliation, if appropriate, via the 

NMFS email site (See ADDRESSES) by 4 

p.m. PDT on April 26, 2015. 

Reasonable Accommodation 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations to attend and 

participate in the public meetings 

should contact Steve Stone (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). To 

allow sufficient time to process 

requests, please call at least 5 business 

days prior to the relevant meeting(s). 

Dated: March 17, 2015. 

Perry F. Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06432 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1966] 

Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 

186 Under Alternative Site Framework; 

Waterville, Maine 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Board adopted the 

alternative site framework (ASF) (15 

CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the 

establishment or reorganization of 

zones; 

Whereas, the City of Waterville, 

grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 186, 

submitted an application to the Board 

(FTZ Docket B–65–2014, docketed 09– 

11–2014) for authority to reorganize 

under the ASF with a service area of the 

Counties of Lincoln, Cumberland, 

Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec, 

Waldo, Knox and Somerset (partial), 

Maine, within and adjacent to the 

Belfast Customs and Border Protection 

port of entry, and FTZ 186’s existing 

Site 1 would be categorized as a magnet 

site; 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 56057, 09–18–2014) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations are satisfied; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize FTZ 186 

under the ASF is approved, subject to 

the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including Section 400.13, and to the 

Board’s standard 2,000-acre activation 

limit for the zone. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this March 12, 

2015. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate 

Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06462 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD830 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; 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: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from SAExploration Inc. (SAE) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to a proposed oil and gas 

exploration seismic survey program in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska between April 1, 

2015 and December 31, 2015. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to SAE 

to incidentally take marine mammals, 

by Level B harassment only, during the 

specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take 

Program, Permits and Conservation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Physical comments should be sent to 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910 and electronic comments 

should be sent to itp.young@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to the 

Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental.htm without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Young, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

An electronic copy of the application 

and supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained by visiting 

the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The 

following associated documents are also 

available at the same internet address: 

Application Packet, Marine Mammal 

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, draft 

Environmental Assessment. 

We are also preparing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

will consider comments submitted in 

response to this notice as part of that 

process. The EA will be posted at the 

NOAA Fisheries Incidental Take 

internet site once it is finalized. 

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. 

An 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 October 28, 2014, we received a 

request from SAE for authorization to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

seismic surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

After further correspondence and 

revisions by the applicant, we 

determined that the application was 

adequate and complete on January 12, 

2015. 

SAE proposes to conduct oil and gas 

exploration seismic surveys. The 

proposed activity would occur between 

April 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015, 

for a period of 160 days. The following 

specific aspects of the proposed 

activities are likely to result in the take 

of marine mammals: Operation of 

seismic airguns in arrays of 440 in3 and 

1,760 in3. Take, by Level B Harassment 

only, of individuals of beluga whale, 

harbor porpoise, killer whale, harbor 

seal, and Steller sea lion is anticipated 

to result from the specified activity. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

SAE plans to conduct 3D seismic 

surveys over multiple years in the 

marine waters of both upper and lower 

Cook Inlet. This proposed authorization 

will cover activities occurring between 

April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016. The 

ultimate survey area is divided into two 

units (upper and lower Cook Inlet). The 

total potential survey area is 3,934 

square kilometers (1,519 square miles); 

however, only a portion (currently 

unspecified) of this area will ultimately 

be surveyed, and no more than 777 

square kilometers (300 square miles) in 

a given year. The exact location of 

where the 2015 survey will be 

conducted is not known at this time, 

and probably will not be known until 

spring 2015 when SAE’s clients have 

finalized their data acquisition needs. 

The components of the project 

include laying recording sensors (nodes) 

on the ocean floor, operating seismic 

source vessels towing active air gun 

arrays, and retrieval of nodes. There will 

also be additional boat activity 

associated with crew transfer, recording 

support, and additional monitoring for 

marine mammals. The primary seismic 

source for offshore recording consists of 

a 2 x 880-cubic-inch tri-cluster array for 

a total of 1,760-cubic-inches (although a 

440-cubic-inch array may be used in 

very shallow water locations as 

necessary). Each of the arrays will be 

deployed in a configuration outlined in 

Appendix A of the application. The 

arrays will be centered approximately 

15 meters (50 feet) behind the source 

vessel stern, at a depth of 4 meters (12 

feet), and towed along predetermined 

source lines at speeds between 7.4 and 

9.3 kilometers per hour (4 and 5 knots). 

Two vessels with full arrays will be 

operating simultaneously in an 

alternating shot mode; one vessel 

shooting while the other is recharging. 

Shot intervals are expected to be about 

16 seconds for each array resulting in an 

overall shot interval of 8 seconds 

considering the two alternating arrays. 

Operations are expected to occur 24 

hours a day, with actual daily shooting 

to total about 12 hours. An acoustical 

positioning (or pinger) system will be 

used to position and interpolate the 

location of the nodes. A vessel-mounted 

transceiver calculates the position of the 

nodes by measuring the range and 

bearing from the transceiver to a small 

acoustic transponder fitted to every 

third node. The transceiver uses sonar 

to interrogate the transponders, which 

respond with short pulses that are used 

in measuring the range and bearing. 

Several offshore vessels will be required 

to support recording, shooting, and 

housing in the marine and transition 

zone environments. Exact vessels to be 

used have not been determined. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14915 

Dates and Duration 

The request for incidental harassment 

authorization is for the 2015 Cook Inlet 

open water season (April 1 to December 

31). All associated activities, including 

mobilization, survey activities, and 

demobilization of survey and support 

crews, would occur between the above 

dates. The plan is to conduct seismic 

surveys in the Upper Cook unit 

sometime between April 1 and 

December 31. The northern border of 

the seismic survey area depicted in 

Figure 1 takes into account the 

restriction that no activity occur 

between April 15 to October 15 in 

waters within 16 kilometers (10 miles) 

of the Susitna Delta (defined as the 

nearshore area between the mouths of 

the Beluga and the Little Susitna rivers). 

A small wedge of the upper Cook unit 

falls within 16 kilometers of the Beluga 

River mouth, but survey here would 

occur after October 15, taking into 

account any timing restrictions with 

nearshore beluga habitat. The seismic 

acquisition in lower Cook unit would 

initially begin in late August or midSeptember, and run until December 15 

taking into account any self-imposed 

location/timing restrictions to avoid 

encounters with sea otters or Steller’s 

eiders. The exact survey dates in a given 

unit will depend on ice conditions, 

timing restrictions, and other factors. If 

the upper Cook Inlet seismic surveys are 

delayed by spring ice conditions, some 

survey may occur in lower Cook Inlet 

from March to May to maximize use of 

the seismic fleet. Actual data acquisition 

is expected to occur for only 2 to 3 

hours at a time during each of the 3 to 

4 daily slack tides. Thus, it is expected 

that the air guns would operate an 

average of about 8 to 10 total hours per 

day. It is estimated that it will take 160 

days to complete both the upper and 

lower Cook units, and that no more than 

777 square kilometers (300 square 

miles) of survey area will be shot in 

2015. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The area of Cook Inlet that SAE plans 

to operate in has been divided into two 

subsections: Upper and Lower Cook 

Inlet. Upper Cook (2,126 square 

kilometers; 821 square miles) begins at 

the line delineating Cook Inlet beluga 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Critical 

Habitat Area 1 and 2, south to a line 

approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) 

south of both the West Foreland and 

East Foreland (Figure 1 in SAE 

application). 

Lower Cook (1,808 square kilometer; 

698 square mile) begins east of Kalgin 

Island and running along the east side 

of lower Cook Inlet to Anchor Point 

(Figure 2 in SAE application). 

Detailed Description of Activities 

Survey Design 

Marine seismic operations will be 

based on a ‘‘recording patch’’ or similar 

approach. Patches are groups of six 

receiver lines and 32 source lines 

(Figure 3 in SAE application). Each 

receiver line has submersible marine 

sensor nodes tethered (with nonkinking, non-floating line) equidistant 

(50 meters; 165 feet) from each other 

along the length of the line. Each node 

is a multicomponent system containing 

three velocity sensors and a hydrophone 

(Figure 4 in SAE application). Each 

receiver line is approximately 8 

kilometers (5 miles) in length, and are 

spaced approximately 402 meters (1,320 

feet) apart. Each receiver patch is 19.4 

square kilometers (7.5 square miles) in 

area. The receiver patch is oriented such 

that the receiver lines run parallel to the 

shoreline. 

The 32 source lines, 12 kilometers 

(7.5 miles) long and spaced 502 meters 

(1,650 feet) apart, run perpendicular to 

the receiver lines (and perpendicular to 

the coast) and, where possible, will 

extend approximately 5 kilometers (3 

miles) beyond the outside receiver lines 

and approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 

miles) beyond each of the ends of the 

receiver lines. The outside dimensions 

of the maximum shot area during a 

patch shoot will be 12 kilometers by 16 

kilometers (7.5 miles by 10 miles), with 

an area of 192 square kilometers (754 

square miles). All shot areas will be 

wholly contained within the survey 

boxes depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of 

SAE’s application. Shot intervals along 

each source line will be 50 meters (165 

feet). 

It may take a period of three three to 

five days to deploy, shoot, and record a 

single receiver patch. On average, 

approximately 49 square kilometers 

(18.75 square miles) of patch will be 

shot daily. During recording of one 

patch, nodes from the previously 

surveyed patch will be retrieved, 

recharged, and data downloaded prior 

to redeployment of the nodes to the next 

patch. As patches are recorded, receiver 

lines are moved side to side or end to 

end to the next patch location so that 

receiver lines have continuous coverage 

of the recording area. Autonomous 

recording nodes lack cables but will be 

tethered together using a thin rope for 

ease of retrieval. This non-floating, nonkinking rope will lay on the seabed 

surface, as will the nodes, and will have 

no effect on marine traffic. Primary 

vessel positioning will be achieved 

using GPS with the antenna attached to 

the air gun array. Pingers deployed from 

the node vessels will be used for 

positioning of nodes. The geometry/

patch could be modified as operations 

progress to improve sampling and 

operational efficiency. 

Acoustic Sources 

Air guns are the acoustic sources of 

primary concern and will be deployed 

from the seismic vessels. However, there 

are other noise sources to be considered. 

These include the pingers and 

transponders associated with locating 

receiver nodes, as well as propeller 

noise from the vessel fleet. 

Seismic Source Array 

The primary seismic source for 

offshore recording consists of a 2 x 880- 

cubic-inch tri-cluster array for a total of 

1,760-cubic-inches (although a 440- 

cubic-inch array may be used in very 

shallow water locations as necessary). 

Each of the arrays will be deployed in 

a configuration outlined in Appendix A. 

The arrays will be centered 

approximately 15 meters (50 feet) 

behind the source vessel stern, at a 

depth of 4 meters (12 feet), and towed 

along predetermined source lines at 

speeds between 7.4 and 9.3 kilometers 

per hour (4 and 5 knots). Two vessels 

with full arrays will be operating 

simultaneously in an alternating shot 

mode; one vessel shooting while the 

other is recharging. Shot intervals are 

expected to be about 16 seconds for 

each array resulting in an overall shot 

interval of 8 seconds considering the 

two alternating arrays. Operations are 

expected to occur 24 hours a day, with 

actual daily shooting to total about 12 

hours. 

Based on the manufacturer’s 

specifications, the 1,760-cubic-inch 

array has a peak-peak estimated sound 

source of 254.55 dB (decibels) re 1 

micropascals (mPa) @ 1 m (53.5 bar-m; 

Far-field Signature, Appendix A), with 

a root mean square (rms) sound source 

of 236.55 dB re 1 mPa. The 

manufacturer-provided source 

directivity plots for the three possible 

air gun arrays are shown in Appendix 

A of the application. They clearly 

indicate that the acoustical broadband 

energy is concentrated along the vertical 

axis (focused downward), while there is 

little energy focused horizontally. The 

spacing between air guns results in 

offset arrival timing of the sound energy. 

These delays ‘‘smear’’ the sound 

signature as offset energy waves 

partially cancel each other, which 

reduces the amplitude in the horizontal 

direction. Thus, marine mammals near 

the surface and horizontal to the air gun 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

arrays would receive sound levels 

considerably less than a marine 

mammal situated directly beneath the 

array, and likely at levels less than 

predicted by the acoustical spreading 

model. 

Air gun arrays typically produce most 

noise energy in the 10- to 120-hertz 

range, with some energy extending to 1 

kilohertz (kHz) (Richardson et al. 1995). 

This sound energy is within the hearing 

range of all of the marine mammal 

species present in Cook Inlet, although 

based on available audiograms, 

pinniped and, especially, odontocete 

hearing is expected to be less sensitive 

in this range than mysticete hearing (Au 

and Hastings 2008; Southall et al 2007). 

Richardson et al. (1995) found little 

evidence of pinnipeds and odontocetes 

reacting to seismic pulses, suggesting 

pinnipeds are tolerant to these types of 

noise and odontocetes have difficulty 

hearing the low frequency energy. It is 

assumed, however, that SAE’s air gun 

pulses will be audible to local 

pinnipeds and odontocetes given the 

high energy involved, but would more 

likely elicit reaction from baleen 

whales, such as minke and humpback 

whales, than the high frequency species. 

Transceivers and Transponders 

An acoustical positioning (or pinger) 

system will be used to position and 

interpolate the location of the nodes. A 

vessel-mounted transceiver calculates 

the position of the nodes by measuring 

the range and bearing from the 

transceiver to a small acoustic 

transponder fitted to every third node. 

The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate 

the transponders, which respond with 

short pulses that are used in measuring 

the range and bearing. The system 

provides a precise location of every 

node as needed for accurate 

interpretation of the seismic data. The 

transceiver to be used is the Sonardyne 

Scout USBL, while transponders will be 

the Sonardyne TZ/OBC Type 7815–000– 

06. Because the transceiver and 

transponder communicate via sonar, 

they produce underwater sound levels. 

The Scout USBL transceiver has a 

transmission source level of 197 dB re 

1 mPa @ 1 m (rms) and operates at 

frequencies between 35 and 55 kHz. The 

transponder produces short pulses of 

184 to 187 dB re 1 mPa (rms) @ 1 m at 

frequencies also between 35 and 55 kHz. 

Both transceivers and transponders 

produce noise levels just above or 

within the most sensitive hearing range 

of seals (75 Hz to 100 kHz; (Hemila ̈ et 

al. 2006; Kastelein et al. 2009; 

Reichmuth et al. 2013) and odontocetes 

(150 Hz to 180 kHz; Wartzok and Ketten 

1999), and the functional hearing range 

of baleen whales (7 Hz to 30 kHz; 

Southall et al 2007). However, given the 

low acoustical output, the range where 

acoustic-based harassment to marine 

mammals (for the 197 dB transceiver) 

could occur extends about 100 meters 

(328 feet), or significantly less than the 

output from the air gun arrays, and is 

not loud enough to reach injury levels 

in marine mammals beyond 9 meters 

(30 feet). Marine mammals are likely to 

respond to pinger systems similar to air 

gun pulses, but only when very close (a 

few meters) to the sources. 

Vessels 

SAE will be using a variety of vessels 

to conduct the seismic survey and 

related activities. These include: Two 

source vessels, three node equipment 

deployment and retrieval vessels, one 

mitigation and housing vessel, one crew 

transport vessel, and two bow pickers. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Marine mammals most likely to be 

found in the upper Cook activity area 

are the beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena), and harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina). However, these species are 

found there in low numbers, and 

generally only during the summer fish 

runs (Nemeth et al. 2007, Boveng et al. 

2012). These species are also found in 

the Lower Cook survey area along with 

humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), minke whales 

(Balaenoptera acutorostra), gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus), killer whales 

(Orcinus orca), Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli), and Steller sea 

lions (Eumetopia jubatus). Minke 

whales have been considered migratory 

in Alaska (Allen and Angliss, 2014) but 

have recently been observed off Cape 

Starichkof and Anchor Point year-round 

(Owl Ridge, 2014). Humpback and gray 

whales are seasonal in Lower Cook, 

while the remaining species could be 

encountered at any time of the year. 

During marine mammal monitoring 

conducted off Cape Starichkof between 

May and August 2013, observers 

recorded small numbers of humpback 

whales, minke whales, gray whales, 

killer whales, and Steller sea lions, and 

moderate numbers of harbor porpoises 

and harbor seals (Owl Ridge, 2014). This 

survey also recorded a single beluga 

observed 6 kilometers north of Cape 

Starichkof in August 2013. The stock 

sizes for marine mammals found in the 

proposed project area in Cook Inlet are 

shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE COOK INLET ACTION 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 

Humpback whale ................ Central North Pacific ........ E/D;Y ............ 7,469 (0.095;5,833;2000) Occasionally seen in Lower Inlet, summer. 

Minke whale ....................... Alaska ............................... —;N .............. 1,233 (0.034;N/A;2003) .... Infrequently occur but reported yearround. 

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 Lower Cook 

Inlet. 

Alaska 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). 

Dall’s porpoise .................... Alaska ............................... ...................... ........................................... Infrequently found in Lower Inlet. 

Steller sea lion ................... Western DPS .................... E/D;Y ............ 79,300 (N/A; 45,659; 

2012).

Primarily found in lower Inlet. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14917 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE COOK INLET ACTION AREA—Continued 

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 

Harbor seal ......................... Cook Inlet/Shelikof ........... —;N .............. 22,900 (0.053; 21,896; 

2006).

Frequently found in upper and lower 

inlet; annual (more in northern Inlet in 

summer). 

Source: Allen and Angliss (20142, 2013), Carretta et al. (2013), Zerbini et al. (2006). 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) 

Although there is considerable 

distributional overlap in the humpback 

whale stocks that use Alaska, the whales 

seasonally found in lower Cook Inlet are 

probably of the Central North Pacific 

stock. Listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), this 

stock has recently been estimated at 

7,469, with the portion of the stock that 

feeds in the Gulf of Alaska estimated at 

2,845 animals (Allen and Angliss 

20143). The Central North Pacific stock 

winters in Hawaii and summers from 

British Columbia to the Aleutian Islands 

(Calambokidis et al. 1997), including 

Cook Inlet. 

Humpback use of Cook Inlet is largely 

confined to lower Cook Inlet. They have 

been regularly seen near Kachemak Bay 

during the summer months (Rugh et al. 

2005a), and there is a whale-watching 

venture in Homer capitalizing on this 

seasonal event. There are anecdotal 

observations of humpback whales as far 

north as Anchor Point, with recent 

summer observations extending to Cape 

Starichkof (Owl Ridge 2014). 

Humpbacks might be encountered in the 

vicinity of Anchor Point if seismic 

operations were to occur off the point 

during the summer. However, SAE 

plans, for the most part, to limit seismic 

activity along the Kenai Peninsula to 

during the spring and fall. 

Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostra) 

Minke whales are the smallest of the 

rorqual group of baleen whales reaching 

lengths of up to 35 feet. They are also 

the most common of the baleen whales, 

although there are no population 

estimates for the North Pacific, although 

estimates have been made for some 

portions of Alaska. Zerbini et al. (2006) 

estimated the coastal population 

between Kenai Fjords and the Aleutian 

Islands at 1,233 animals. 

During Cook Inlet-wide aerial surveys 

conducted from 1993 to 2004, minke 

whales were encountered only twice 

(1998, 1999), both times off Anchor 

Point 16 miles northwest of Homer. A 

minke whale was also reported off Cape 

Starichkof in 2011 (A. Holmes, pers. 

comm.) and 2013 (E. Fernandez and C. 

Hesselbach, pers. comm.), suggesting 

this location is regularly used by minke 

whales, including during the winter. 

Recently, several minke whales were 

recorded off Cape Starichkof in early 

summer 2013 during exploratory 

drilling conducted there (Owl Ridge 

2014). There are no records north of 

Cape Starichkof, and this species is 

unlikely to be seen in upper Cook Inlet. 

There is a chance of encountering this 

whale during seismic operations along 

the Kenai Peninsula in lower Cook Inlet. 

Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) 

Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific 

stock of gray whale migrates 8,000 

kilometers (5,000 miles) northward from 

breeding lagoons in Baja California to 

feeding grounds in the Bering and 

Chukchi seas, reversing their travel 

again in the fall (Rice and Wolman 

1971). Their migration route is for the 

most part coastal until they reach the 

feeding grounds. A small portion of 

whales do not annually complete the 

full circuit, as small numbers can be 

found in the summer feeding along the 

Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, 

and Alaskan coasts (Rice et al. 1984, 

Moore et al. 2007). 

Human exploitation reduced this 

stock to an estimated ‘‘few thousand’’ 

animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). 

However, by the late 1980s, the stock 

was appearing to reach carrying 

capacity and estimated to be at 26,600 

animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). By 

2002, that stock had been reduced to 

about 16,000 animals, especially 

following unusually high mortality 

events in 1999 and 2000 (Allen and 

Angliss 2014). The stock has continued 

to grow since then and is currently 

estimated at 19,126 animals with a 

minimum estimate of 18,017 (Carretta et 

al. 2013). 

Most gray whales migrate past the 

mouth of Cook Inlet to and from 

northern feeding grounds. However, 

small numbers of summering gray 

whales have been noted by fisherman 

near Kachemak Bay and north of 

Anchor Point. Further, summering gray 

whales were seen offshore of Cape 

Starichkof by marine mammal observers 

monitoring Buccaneer’s Cosmopolitan 

drilling program in 2013 (Owl Ridge 

2014). Regardless, gray whales are not 

expected to be encountered in upper 

Cook Inlet, where there are no records, 

but might be encountered during 

seismic operations along the Kenai 

Peninsula south of Ninilchik. However, 

seismic surveys are not planned in this 

region during the summer months when 

gray whales would be most expected. 

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) 

The Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) is a small 

geographically isolated population that 

is separated from other beluga 

populations by the Alaska Peninsula. 

The population is genetically (mtDNA) 

distinct from other Alaska populations 

suggesting the Peninsula is an effective 

barrier to genetic exchange (O’CorryCrowe et al. 1997) and that these whales 

may have been separated from other 

stocks at least since the last ice age. 

Laidre et al. (2000) examined data from 

more than 20 marine mammal surveys 

conducted in the northern Gulf of 

Alaska and found that sightings of 

belugas outside Cook Inlet were 

exceedingly rare, and these were 

composed of a few stragglers from the 

Cook Inlet DPS observed at Kodiak 

Island, Prince William Sound, and 

Yakutat Bay. Several marine mammal 

surveys specific to Cook Inlet (Laidre et 

al. 2000, Speckman and Piatt 2000), 

including those that concentrated on 

beluga whales (Rugh et al. 2000, 2005a), 

clearly indicate that this stock largely 

confines itself to Cook Inlet. There is no 

indication that these whales make 

forays into the Bering Sea where they 

might intermix with other Alaskan 

stocks. 

The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was 

originally estimated at 1,300 whales in 

1979 (Calkins 1989) and has been the 

focus of management concerns since 

experiencing a dramatic decline in the 

1990s. Between 1994 and 1998 the stock 

declined 47 percent which was 

attributed to overharvesting by 

subsistence hunting. Subsistence 

hunting was estimated to annually 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

remove 10 to 15 percent of the 

population during this period. Only five 

belugas have been harvested since 1999, 

yet the population has continued to 

decline, with the most recent estimate at 

only 312 animals (Allen and Angliss 

2014). NMFS listed the population as 

‘‘depleted’’ in 2000 as a consequence of 

the decline, and as ‘‘endangered’’ under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 

2008 when the population failed to 

recover following a moratorium on 

subsistence harvest. In April 2011, 

NMFS designated critical habitat for the 

beluga under the ESA (Figure 3). 

Prior to the decline, this DPS was 

believed to range throughout Cook Inlet 

and occasionally into Prince William 

Sound and Yakutat (Nemeth et al. 

2007). However the range has contracted 

coincident with the population 

reduction (Speckman and Piatt 2000). 

During the summer and fall beluga 

whales are concentrated near the 

Susitna River mouth, Knik Arm, 

Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon Bay 

(Nemeth et al. 2007) where they feed on 

migrating eulachon (Thaleichthys 

pacificus) and salmon (Onchorhyncus 

spp.) (Moore et al. 2000). Critical 

Habitat Area 1 reflects this summer 

distribution (Figure 3). During the 

winter, beluga whales concentrate in 

deeper waters in the mid-inlet to Kalgin 

Island, and in the shallow waters along 

the west shore of Cook Inlet to 

Kamishak Bay (Critical Habitat Area 2; 

Figure 1). Some whales may also winter 

in and near Kachemak Bay. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14919 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 

Harbor porpoise are small (1.5 meters 

length), relatively inconspicuous 

toothed whales. The Gulf of Alaska 

Stock is distributed from Cape Suckling 

to Unimak Pass and was most recently 

estimated at 31,046 animals (Allen and 

Angliss 2014). They are found primarily 

in coastal waters less than 100 meters 

(100 meters) deep (Hobbs and Waite 

2010) where they feed on Pacific herring 

(Clupea pallasii), other schooling fishes, 

and cephalopods. 

Although they have been frequently 

observed during aerial surveys in Cook 

Inlet, most sightings are of single 

animals, and are concentrated at 

Chinitna and Tuxedni bays on the west 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN20MR15.003</GPH>

Critical Habitat Area 1 

Critical Habitat Area 2 

Figure 1. Cook Inlet Beluga Critical Habitat. 
14920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

side of lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 

2005a). Dahlheim et al. (2000) estimated 

the 1991 Cook Inlet-wide population at 

only 136 animals. However, they are 

one of the three marine mammals 

(besides belugas and harbor seals) 

regularly seen in upper Cook Inlet 

(Nemeth et al. 2007), especially during 

spring eulachon and summer salmon 

runs. Because harbor porpoise have 

been observed throughout Cook Inlet 

during the summer months, including 

mid-inlet waters, they could be 

encountered during seismic operations 

in upper Cook Inlet. 

Dall’s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) 

Dall’s porpoise are widely distributed 

throughout the North Pacific Ocean 

including Alaska, although they are not 

found in upper Cook Inlet and the 

shallower waters of the Bering, Chukchi, 

and Beaufort Seas (Allen and Angliss 

2014). Compared to harbor porpoise, 

Dall’s porpoise prefer the deep offshore 

and shelf slope waters. The Alaskan 

population has been estimated at 83,400 

animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), 

making it one of the more common 

cetaceans in the state. Dall’s porpoise 

have been observed in lower Cook Inlet, 

including Kachemak Bay and near 

Anchor Point (Owl Ridge 2014), but 

sightings there are rare. There is a 

remote chance that Dall’s porpoise 

might be encountered during seismic 

operations along the Kenai Peninsula. 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 

Two different stocks of killer whales 

inhabit the Cook Inlet region of Alaska: 

the Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf 

of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea 

Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss 

2014). The resident stock is estimated at 

2,347 animals and occurs from 

Southeast Alaska to the Bering Sea 

(Allen and Angliss 2014). Resident 

whales feed exclusively on fish and are 

genetically distinct from transient 

whales (Saulitis et al. 2000). The 

transient whales feed primarily on 

marine mammals (Saulitis et al. 2000). 

The transient population inhabiting the 

Gulf of Alaska shares mitochondrial 

DNA haplotypes with whales found 

along the Aleutian Islands and the 

Bering Sea suggesting a common stock, 

although there appears to be some 

subpopulation genetic structuring 

occurring to suggest the gene flow 

between groups is limited (see Allen 

and Angliss 2014). For the three regions 

combined, the transient population has 

been estimated at 587 animals (Allen 

and Angliss 2014). 

Killer whales are occasionally 

observed in lower Cook Inlet, especially 

near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden 

et al. 2003, Rugh et al. 2005a). A 

concentration of sightings near Homer 

and inside Kachemak Bay may represent 

high use or may reflect high observereffort, given most records are from a 

whale-watching venture based in 

Homer. The few whales that have been 

photographically identified in lower 

Cook Inlet belong to resident groups 

more commonly found in nearby Kenai 

Fjords and Prince William Sound 

(Shelden et al. 2003). Prior to the 1980s, 

killer whale sightings in upper Cook 

Inlet were very rare. During aerial 

surveys conducted between 1993 and 

2004, killer whales were observed on 

only three flights, all in the Kachemak 

and English Bay area (Rugh et al. 

2005a). However, anecdotal reports of 

killer whales feeding on belugas in 

upper Cook Inlet began increasing in the 

1990s, possibly in response to declines 

in sea lion and harbor seal prey 

elsewhere (Shelden et al. 2003). These 

sporadic ventures of transient whales 

into beluga summering grounds have 

been implicated as a possible 

contributor to decline of Cook Inlet 

belugas in the 1990s, although the 

number of confirmed mortalities from 

killer whales is small (Shelden et al. 

2003). If killer whales were to venture 

into upper Cook Inlet in 2015, they 

might be encountered during both 

seismic operations in both upper and 

lower Cook Inlet. 

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopia jubatus) 

The Western Stock of the Steller sea 

lion is defined as all populations west 

of longitude 144°W to the western end 

of the Aleutian Islands. The most recent 

estimate for this stock is 45,649 animals 

(Allen and Angliss 2014), considerably 

less than that estimated 140,000 animals 

in the 1950s (Merrick et al. 1987). 

Because of this dramatic decline, the 

stock was listed as threatened under 

ESA in 1990, and was relisted as 

endangered in 1997. Critical habitat was 

designated in 1993, and is defined as a 

20-nautical-mile radius around all major 

rookeries and haulout sites. The 20- 

nautical-mile buffer was established 

based on telemetry data that indicated 

these sea lions concentrated their 

summer foraging effort within this 

distance of rookeries and haul outs. 

Steller sea lions inhabit lower Cook 

Inlet, especially in the vicinity of Shaw 

Island and Elizabeth Island (Nagahut 

Rocks) haulout sites (Rugh et al. 2005a), 

but are rarely seen in upper Cook Inlet 

(Nemeth et al. 2007). Of the 42 Steller 

sea lion groups recorded during Cook 

Inlet aerial surveys between 1993 and 

2004, none were recorded north of 

Anchor Point and only one in the 

vicinity of Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al. 

2005a). Marine mammal observers 

associated with Buccaneer’s drilling 

project off Cape Starichkof did observe 

seven Steller sea lions during the 

summer of 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014). 

The upper reaches of Cook Inlet may 

not provide adequate foraging 

conditions for sea lions for establishing 

a major haul out presence. Steller sea 

lions feed largely on walleye pollock 

(Theragra chalcogramma), salmon 

(Onchorhyncus spp.), and arrowtooth 

flounder (Atheresthes stomias) during 

the summer, and walleye pollock and 

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) 

during the winter (Sinclair and 

Zeppelin 2002), none which, except for 

salmon, are found in abundance in 

upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth et al. 2007). 

Steller sea lions are unlikely to be 

encountered during seismic operations 

in upper Cook Inlet, but they could 

possibly be encountered along the Kenai 

Peninsula, especially closer to Anchor 

Point. 

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) 

With more than 150,000 animals 

state-wide (Allen and Angliss 2014), 

harbor seals are one of the more 

common marine mammal species in 

Alaskan waters. They are most 

commonly seen hauled out at tidal flats 

and rocky areas. Harbor seals feed 

largely on schooling fish such a walleye 

pollock, Pacific cod, salmon, Pacific 

herring, eulachon, and squid. Although 

harbor seals may make seasonal 

movements in response to prey, they are 

resident to Alaska and do not migrate. 

The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Stock, 

ranging from approximately Anchorage 

down along the south side of the Alaska 

Peninsula to Unimak Pass, has been 

recently estimated at a stable 22,900 

(Allen and Angliss 2014). Large 

numbers concentrate at the river mouths 

and embayments of lower Cook Inlet, 

including the Fox River mouth in 

Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al. 2005a). 

Montgomery et al. (2007) recorded over 

200 haulout sites in lower Cook Inlet 

alone. However, only a few dozens to a 

couple hundred seals seasonally occur 

in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a), 

mostly at the mouth of the Susitna River 

where their numbers vary in concert 

with the spring eulachon and summer 

salmon runs (Nemeth et al. 2007, 

Boveng et al. 2012). In 2012, up to 100 

harbor seals were observed hauled out 

at the mouths of the Theodore and 

Lewis rivers during monitoring activity 

associated with SAE’s (with Apache) 

2012 Cook Inlet seismic program. 

Montgomery et al. (2007) also found 

seals elsewhere in Cook Inlet to move in 

response to local steelhead 

(Onchorhynchus mykiss) and salmon 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14921 

runs. Harbor seals may be encountered 

during seismic operations in both upper 

and lower Cook Inlet. 

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) 

designated ‘‘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) and have been 

modified slightly from Southall et al. 

2007 to incorporate some newer 

information: 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; (Ketten 

and Mountain 2009; Tubelli et al. 2012) 

• 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; (Southall et al. 2007) 

• 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; (Southall et al. 2007) 

• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: 

functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 

kHz; (Hemila ̈ et al. 2006; Mulsow et al. 

2011; Reichmuth et al. 2013) and 

• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 100 Hz and 40 

kHz. (Reichmuth et al. 2013) 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, nine marine mammal species 

(seven cetacean and two pinniped 

species) are likely to occur in the 

proposed seismic survey area. Of the 

seven cetacean species likely to occur in 

SAE’s proposed project area, three 

classified as a low-frequency cetaceans 

(humpback, minke, gray whale), two are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(beluga and killer whales), and two are 

classified as a high-frequency cetaceans 

(Dall’s and harbor porpoise) (Southall et 

al., 2007). Of the two pinniped species 

likely to occur in SAE’s proposed 

project area, one is classified as a 

phocid (harbor seal), and one is 

classified as an otariid (Steller sea lion). 

A species’ 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. The consequences of 

behavioral modification to individual 

fitness can range from none up to 

potential changes to growth, survival, or 

reproduction, depending on the context, 

duration, and degree of behavioral 

modification. 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); longer-term 

abandonment of habitat that is 

specifically important for feeding, 

reproduction, or other critical needs, or 

significant disruption of feeding or 

social interaction resulting in 

substantive energetic costs, inhibited 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

breeding, or prolonged or permanent 

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 (Tyack et al., 2003) has yielded 

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., Gold, 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 necessarily generally 

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 

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, 

grey and harbor 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 

activity 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14923 

and/or increasing call volume and 

vocalization rates. For example, blue 

whales were 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 

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). 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14924 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

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. Similarly, 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14925 

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 

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 SAE’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 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 Alaska’s first 

seismic survey in 2012. 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. 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 SAE’s 

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. 

Vessel Impacts 

Vessel activity and noise associated 

with vessel activity will temporarily 

increase in the action area during SAE’s 

seismic survey as a result of the 

operation of nine vessels. To minimize 

the effects of vessels and noise 

associated with vessel activity, SAE 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 (4–5 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14926 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, 

killer whales, and harbor porpoises, 

often show tolerance to vessel activity; 

however, they may react at long 

distances if they are confined by ice, 

shallow water, or were previously 

harassed by vessels (Richardson et al., 

1995). Beluga whale response to vessel 

noise varies greatly from tolerance to 

extreme sensitivity depending on the 

activity of the whale and previous 

experience with vessels (Richardson et 

al., 1995). Reactions to vessels 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 SAE’s equipment 

contains cables or lines, the risk of 

entanglement is extremely remote. 

Additionally, mortality from 

entanglement is not anticipated. The 

material used by SAE 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14927 

sub-lethal physical damage to fish; 

physiological effects include primary 

and secondary stress responses; and 

behavioral effects include changes in 

exhibited behaviors of fish. Behavioral 

changes might be a direct reaction to a 

detected sound or a result of the 

anthropogenic sound masking natural 

sounds that the fish normally detect and 

to which they respond. The three types 

of effects are often interrelated in 

complex ways. For example, some 

physiological and behavioral effects 

could potentially lead to the ultimate 

pathological effect of mortality. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) reviewed what is 

known about the effects of sound on 

fishes and identified studies needed to 

address areas of uncertainty relative to 

measurement of sound and the 

responses of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/ 

2004) also published a paper that 

reviews the effects of anthropogenic 

sound on the behavior and physiology 

of fishes. 

The level of sound at which a fish 

will react or alter its behavior is usually 

well above the detection level. Fish 

have been found to react to sounds 

when the sound level increased to about 

20 dB above the detection level of 120 

dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response 

threshold can depend on the time of 

year and the fish’s physiological 

condition (Engas et al., 1993). In 

general, fish react more strongly to 

pulses of sound rather than a 

continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), 

and a quicker alarm response is elicited 

when the sound signal intensity rises 

rapidly compared to sound rising more 

slowly to the same level. 

Investigations of fish behavior in 

relation to vessel noise (Olsen et al., 

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

have shown that fish react when the 

sound from the engines and propeller 

exceeds a certain level. Avoidance 

reactions have been observed in fish 

such as cod and herring when vessels 

approached close enough that received 

sound levels are 110 dB to 130 dB 

(Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and 

Godo, 1990; Ona and Toresen, 1988). 

However, other researchers have found 

that fish such as polar cod, herring, and 

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 

SAE’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 32 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)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(where relevant). 

Mitigation Measures Proposed by SAE 

For the proposed mitigation measures, 

SAE listed the following protocols to be 

implemented during its seismic survey 

program in Cook Inlet. 

1. Operation of Mitigation Airgun at 

Night 

SAE 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 

SAE 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’’) of any beluga whales or 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 SAE 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14928 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

source within which received levels 

equal or exceed 160 dB re 1 mPa [rms] 

and SAE will implement power down 

and/or shutdown measures, as 

appropriate, if 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 

above, NMFS proposes implementation 

of the following mitigation measures. 

SAE will 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 SAE 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 SAE that all live animals 

involved in the stranding have left the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14929 

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 SAE 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 SAE’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. SAE submitted information 

regarding marine mammal monitoring to 

be conducted during seismic operations 

as part of the proposed IHA application. 

That information can be found in 

Sections 11 and 13 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14930 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

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 observed 

‘‘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. SAE currently plans to 

have PSOs aboard three vessels: The 

two source vessels 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. 

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 x 50 reticle 

binoculars, assisted by 40 x 80 longrange binoculars. 

All observations would be recorded in 

a standardized format. When a mammal 

sighting is made, the following 

information about the sighting would be 

recorded: 

• Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), sighting 

cue, behavior when first sighted and 

after initial sighting, time of sighting, 

heading (if consistent), bearing and 

distance from the PSO, direction and 

speed relative to vessel, 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, 

SAE proposes to utilize shore-based 

monitoring daily in the event of summer 

seismic activity occurring nearshore to 

Cook Inlet beluga Critical Habitat Area 

1, to visually monitor for marine 

mammals. The shore-based PSOs would 

scan the area prior to, during, and after 

the airgun operations and would be in 

contact with the vessel-based PSOs via 

radio to communicate sightings of 

marine mammals approaching or within 

the project area. This communication 

will allow the vessel-based observers to 

go on a ‘‘heightened’’ state of alert 

regarding occurrence of marine 

mammals in the area and aid in timely 

implementation of mitigation measures. 

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, SAE will immediately 

cease survey operations involving the 

use of active sound sources (e.g., airguns 

and pingers) and notify NMFS. 

1. Weekly Reports 

SAE 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 IHA. For the Biological 

Opinion, the report shall confirm the 

implementation of each Term and 

Condition, as well as any conservation 

recommendations, and describe their 

effectiveness for minimizing the adverse 

effects of the action on ESA-listed 

marine mammals. 

3. Annual Reports 

SAE would submit an annual report 

to NMFS’s Permits and Conservation 

Division within 90 days after the end of 

operations on the water or at least 90 

days prior to requiring a subsequent 

authorization, whichever comes first. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14931 

sightings, including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 

determinable), group sizes, and ice 

cover. 

• Analyses of the effects of survey 

operations. 

• Sighting rates of marine mammals 

during periods with and without 

seismic survey activities (and other 

variables that could affect detectability), 

such as: (i) Initial sighting distances 

versus survey activity state; (ii) closest 

point of approach versus survey activity 

state; (iii) observed behaviors and types 

of movements versus survey activity 

state; (iv) numbers of sightings/

individuals seen versus survey activity 

state; (v) distribution around the source 

vessels versus survey activity state; and 

(vi) numbers of animals detected in the 

160 dB harassment (disturbance 

exclusion) zone. 

NMFS would review the draft annual 

report. SAE 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), SAE 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 SAE to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. SAE may not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS via 

letter or email, or telephone. 

In the event that SAE 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), SAE 

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 SAE to determine 

whether modifications in the activities 

are appropriate. 

In the event that SAE 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), 

SAE 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. SAE 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. 

Monitoring Results From Previously 

Authorized Activities 

While SAE has previously applied for 

Authorizations for work in Cook Inlet, 

Alaska, work was not conducted upon 

receiving the Authorization. SAE has 

previously conducted work under 

Incidental Harassment Authorizations 

in the Beaufort Sea. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, section 

3(18) of the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild; 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 vessel strikes because of the 

slow speed of the vessels (4–5 knots). 

SAE requests authorization to take 

nine marine mammal species by Level 

B harassment. These nine marine 

mammal species are: Cook Inlet beluga 

whale; humpback whale; minke whale; 

killer whale; harbor porpoise; Dall’s 

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 1mPa (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 from 

2002–2012 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 

authorization, as well as for mitigation 

radii to be implemented by PSOs, ranges 

to the 160 dB (rms), 180 dB, and 190 dB 

isopleths were estimated at three 

different water depths (5 m, 25 m, and 

45 m) . The distances to this threshold 

for the nearshore survey locations are 

provided in Table 4 in SAE’s 

application. The distances to the 

thresholds provided in Table 4 in SAE’s 

application correspond to the broadside 

and endfire directions. 

Compared to the airguns, the relevant 

isopleths for the positioning pinger are 

quite small. The distances to the 190, 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

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

respectively. 

Estimates of Marine Mammal Density 

SAE 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 similar fashion to a previous IHA 

issued to Apache, SAE used a habitatbased 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, SAE 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 authorization (humpback 

whales, gray whales, minke whales, 

killer whales, harbor porpoises, Dall’s 

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 SAE’s application provides 

a summary of the results of NMFS aerial 

survey data collected in June from 2000 

to 2012. 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) 

Humpback whale ............ 0.0024 

Gray whale ..................... 9.45E–05 

Minke whale .................... 1.14E–05 

Killer whale ..................... 0.0008 

Dall’s porpoise ................ 0.0002 

Harbor porpoise .............. 0.0033 

Harbor seal ..................... 0.28 

Steller sea lion ................ 0.008 

Calculation of Takes by Harassment 

1. Beluga Whales 

As a result of discussions with NMFS, 

SAE has used the NMML model (Goetz 

et al., 2012a) for the estimate of takes in 

this proposed authorization. SAE 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, which can be 

found in the attached figure which will 

be posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm. 

Based on information using Goetz et 

al. model(2012a), SAE 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. SAE’s seismic operational area 

would be determined as weather, ice, 

and priorities dictate. SAE has 

requested a maximum allowed take for 

Cook Inlet beluga whales of 30 

individuals. SAE would operate in a 

portion of the total seismic operation 

area of 3,934 km2 (1,519 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) and takes the 

number of days into consideration, 

estimated takes will not exceed 30 

beluga whales. 

In order to estimate when that level is 

reached, SAE is using a formula based 

on the total potential area of each 

seismic survey project zone (including 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14933 

the 160 dB buffer) and the average 

density of beluga whales for each zone. 

Daily take is calculated as the product 

of a daily ensonified area times the 

density in that area. Then daily take is 

summed across all the days of the 

survey until the survey approaches 30 

takes. 

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—Upper Inlet ................................................... 28 2,126 d1 = 0.0212 

Zone 2—Lower Inlet ................................................... 29 1,808 d2 = 0.0056 

SAE will limit surveying in the 

proposed seismic survey area (Zones 1 

and 2 presented in Figures 1 and 2 of 

SAE’s application) to ensure a 

maximum of 30 beluga takes during the 

open water season. In order to ensure 

that SAE does not exceed 30 beluga 

whale takes, the following equation is 

being used: 

This formula also allows SAE to have 

flexibility to prioritize survey locations 

in response to local weather, ice, and 

operational constraints. SAE may 

choose to survey portions of a zone or 

a zone in its entirety, and the analysis 

in this proposed authorization takes this 

into account. Using this formula, if SAE 

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 SAE’s 

proposed seismic survey will not exceed 

30 calculated beluga takes. 

Operations are required to cease once 

SAE 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 takes of other Cook 

Inlet marine mammals that may be 

potentially harassed during the seismic 

surveys was calculated by multiplying 

the following: 

• Average density estimates (derived 

from NMFS aerial surveys from 2000– 

2012 and presented in Table 3 in this 

document) 

• the area ensonified by levels ≥160 

dB re mPa rms in one day (calculated 

using the total ensonified area per day 

of 414.92 km2, which is derived by 

applying the buffer distance to the 160 

dB isopleth to the area of 6 survey 

tracklines), 

• the number of potential survey days 

(160). 

This equation provides the number of 

instances of take that will occur in the 

duration of the survey, but 

overestimates the number of individual 

animals taken because not every 

exposure on every successive day is 

expected to be a new individual. 

Especially with resident species, reexposures of individuals are expected 

across the months of the survey. 

SAE anticipates that a crew will 

collect seismic data for 8–10 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, no more than 777 km2

will be surveyed in total, but areas can 

be surveyed more than once. 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. 

As noted above, using the above 

method results in an accurate estimate 

of the instances of take, but likely 

significantly overestimates the number 

of individual animals expected to be 

taken. With most species, even this 

overestimated number is still very 

small, and additional analysis is not 

really necessary to ensure minor 

impacts. However, because of the 

number and density of harbor seals in 

the area, a more accurate understanding 

of the number of individuals likely 

taken is necessary to fully analyze the 

impacts and ensure that the total 

number of harbor seals taken is small. 

Montgomery et al. (2007) surveyed 

harbor seals in Cook Inlet from spring to 

fall and found Cook Inlet harbor seals 

show preference for haulouts away from 

anthropogenic disturbance and near 

abundant prey and deep water. In order 

to estimate the number of individual 

harbor seals likely taken, we multiplied 

the total ensonified area of the entire 

project (1,732 km2) times the average 

harbor seal density from NMML surveys 

(2002–2012) to yield a snapshot 

abundance for the project area, which 

would represent the number of 

individuals taken in the project area if 

one assumed that no new individuals 

would enter the area during the 

duration of the project. Since, however, 

we do believe that some new individual 

harbor seals will enter the project area 

during the course of the surveys, this 

snapshot abundance was adjusted using 

the concept of turnover factors, from 

Wood et al. 2012, to account for new 

animals entering the survey area. Wood 

derived turnover factors in an open 

ocean setting, using 1.0 (no turnover) for 

resident populations, using a very 

specifically derived 2.5 factor for 

migratory species, and establishing a 

1.25 factor for all other species. We did 

not use the turnover factor of 1 for 

harbor seals suggested by Wood, but 

rather considered a more conservative 

2.5 to accommodate for the difference 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN20MR15.004</GPH>
14934 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

between an ocean environment and the 

enclosed environment of the Inlet. 

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 4—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. 

Humpback whale ............. 0.0024 ............................. 158 7,469 ............................... 2.1 Southeast Alaska increasing. 

Minke whale ..................... 1.14E–05 ........................ 1 1,233 ............................... 0.06 No reliable information. 

Gray whale ....................... 5.33E–05 ........................ 7 19,126 ............................. 0.033 Stable/increasing. 

Killer whale ...................... 0.00082 ........................... 55 2,347 (resident) ..............

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

2.34 

15.9 

Resident stock possibly 

increasing Transient 

stock stable. 

Harbor porpoise ............... 0.0033 ............................. 219 31,046 ............................. 0.70 No reliable information. 

Dall’s porpoise ................. 0.0002 ............................. 14 83,400 ............................. 0.016 No reliable information. 

Harbor seal ...................... 0.28 ................................. 1,223 22,900 ............................. 5.34 Stable. 

Steller sea lion ................. 0.0082 ............................. 542 45,649 ............................. 1.19 Decreasing but with regional variability (some 

stable or increasing). 

Analyses and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact Analysis 

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 

mortalities are anticipated to occur as a 

result of SAE’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 10 hours a day. 

Cook Inlet beluga whales, the western 

DPS of Steller sea lions, and Central 

North Pacific humpback whales are 

listed as endangered under the ESA. 

These 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 Central North Pacific 

population of humpbacks is known to 

be increasing, with different techniques 

predicting abundance increases between 

4.9 to 7 percent annually. The other 

seven species that may be taken by 

harassment during SAE’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. Belugas in the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer 

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 translate 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 SAE’s 

proposed survey area during the 

majority of SAE’s annual operational 

timeframe of April through December. 

For the same reason, as well as 

mitigation measures, it is unlikely that 

animals would be exposed to received 

levels capable of causing injury. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14935 

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. 

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 the area known to be 

important for beluga whale feeding, 

calving, or nursing. The primary 

location for these biological life 

functions occurs 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, speed and 

course alterations, 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 SAE’s proposed seismic 

survey activity, operation is not 

anticipated to have an effect on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival of the 

affected species or stocks, and therefore 

will have a negligible impact on them. 

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, such as vessel speed, course 

alteration, and visual monitoring, and 

restrictions will be implemented to help 

reduce impacts to the animals. 

Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to 

sounds produced by this phase of SAE’s 

proposed seismic survey is not 

anticipated to have an effect on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival on those 

species or stocks. 

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 SAE’s proposed seismic 

survey will have a negligible impact on 

the affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers Analysis 

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), 2.34 

percent of the Alaska resident stock and 

15.9 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, 

Aleutian Island and Bering Sea stock of 

killer whales (1,123 residents and 345 

transients), 0.70 percent of the Gulf of 

Alaska stock of approximately 31,046 

harbor porpoises, 2.1 percent of the 

7,469 Central North Pacific humpback 

whales, 0.06 percent of the 1,233 Alaska 

minke whales, 0.016 percent of the 

83,400 Gulf of Alaska Dall’s porpoise, 

and 0.033 percent of the eastern North 

Pacific stock of approximately 19,126 

gray whales. The take requests 

presented for harbor seals represent 5.34 

percent of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock 

of approximately 22,900 animals. The 

requested takes proposed for Steller sea 

lions represent 1.19 percent of the U.S. 

portion of the western stock of 

approximately 45,649 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 from the 

effects of the proposed activity, as 

proposed to be mitigated through this 

IHA, will be limited to small numbers 

relative to the affected species or stocks. 

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 

SAE’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 spatio-temporal 

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 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 are 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14936 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

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 concluded that this number was 

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 (Pub. L. 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 comanagement agreement was to be signed 

(NMFS, 2008a). 

On October 15, 2008, NMFS 

published a final rule that established 

long-term harvest limits on 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 interval period if the 

average stock abundance of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales over the prior five-year 

interval is below 350 whales. Harvest 

levels for the current 5-year planning 

interval (2013–2017) are zero because 

the average stock abundance for the 

previous five-year period (2008–2012) 

was below 350 whales. Based on the 

average abundance over the 2002–2007 

period, 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. 

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). 

Potential Impacts on Availability for 

Subsistence Uses 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) 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 will not 

have any impacts to beluga harvests as 

none currently occur in Cook Inlet. 

Additionally, subsistence harvests of 

other marine mammal species are 

limited in Cook Inlet. 

Plan of Cooperation or Measures To 

Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

require IHA applicants for activities that 

take place in Arctic waters to provide a 

Plan of Cooperation or information that 

identifies what measures have been 

taken and/or will be taken to minimize 

adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence 

purposes. The entire upper Cook unit 

and a portion of the lower Cook unit 

falls north of 60° N, or within the region 

NMFS has designated as an Arctic 

subsistence use area. There are several 

villages in SAE’s proposed project area 

that have traditionally hunted marine 

mammals, primarily harbor seals. 

Tyonek is the only tribal village in 

upper Cook Inlet with a tradition of 

hunting marine mammals, in this case 

harbor seals and beluga whales. 

However, for either species the annual 

recorded harvest since the 1980s has 

averaged about one or fewer of either 

species (Fall et al. 1984, Wolfe et al. 

2009, SRBA and HC 2011), and there is 

currently a moratorium on subsistence 

harvest of belugas. Further, many of the 

seals that are harvested are done 

incidentally to salmon fishing or moose 

hunting (Fall et al. 1984, Merrill and 

Orpheim 2013), often near the mouths 

of the Susitna Delta rivers (Fall et al. 

1984) north of SAE’s proposed seismic 

survey area. 

Villages in lower Cook Inlet adjacent 

to SAE’s proposed seismic area (Kenai, 

Salamatof, and Ninilchik) have either 

not traditionally hunted beluga whales, 

or at least not in recent years, and rarely 

do they harvest sea lions. Between 1992 

and 2008, the only reported sea lion 

harvests from this area were two Steller 

sea lions taken by hunters from Kenai 

(Wolfe et al. 2009). These villages more 

commonly harvest harbor seals, with 

Kenai reporting an average of about 13 

per year between 1992 and 2008 (Wolfe 

et al. 2008). According to Fall et al. 

(1984), many of the seals harvested by 

hunters from these villages were taken 

on the west side of the inlet during 

hunting excursions for moose and black 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14937 

bears (or outside SAE’s lower Cook 

unit). 

Although marine mammals remain an 

important subsistence resource in Cook 

Inlet, the number of animals annually 

harvested are low, and are primarily 

harbor seals. Much of the harbor seal 

harvest occurs incidental to other 

fishing and hunting activities, and at 

areas outside of the SAE’s proposed 

seismic areas such as the Susitna Delta 

or the west side of lower Cook Inlet. 

Also, SAE is unlikely to conduct 

seismic activity in the vicinity of any of 

the river mouths where large numbers of 

seals haul out. 

SAE 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. 

SAE and NMFS recognize the 

importance of ensuring that ANOs and 

federally recognized tribes are informed, 

engaged, and involved during the 

permitting process and will continue to 

work with the ANOs and tribes to 

discuss operations and activities. 

Prior to offshore activities SAE will 

consult with nearby communities such 

as Nikiski, Tyonek, Ninilchik, Anchor 

point. SAE plans to attend and present 

the program description to the different 

groups listed in Section 3 prior to 

operations within those areas. During 

these meetings discussions will include 

our project description, maps of project 

area and resolutions of potential 

conflicts. These meetings will allow 

SAE to understand community 

concerns, and requests for 

communication or mitigation. 

Additional communications will 

continue throughout the project. 

Meetings will also be held with Native 

Corporation leaders to establish 

subsistence activities and timelines. 

Ongoing discussions and meeting with 

federal and state agencies during the 

permit process. 

A specific meeting schedule has not 

been finalized, but meetings with the 

entities identified in Section 3 will 

occur between December 2014 and 

March 2015. 

SAE will document results of all 

meetings and incorporate to mitigate 

concerns into the Plan of Cooperation 

(POC). There shall be a review of permit 

stipulations and a permit matrix 

developed for the crews. The means of 

communications and contacts list will 

be developed and implemented into the 

project. The use of PSOs/MMO’s on 

board the vessels will ensure that 

appropriate precautions are taken to 

avoid harassment of marine mammals. 

If a conflict does occur with project 

activities involving subsistence or 

fishing, the project manager will 

immediately contact the affected party 

to resolve the conflict. If avoidance is 

not possible, the project manager will 

initiate communication with the 

Operations Supervisor to resolve the 

issue and plan an alternative course of 

action. The communications will 

involve the Permits Manager and the 

Anchorage Office of SAE. 

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. 

Additionally, the proposed seismic 

survey area is not an important native 

subsistence site for other subsistence 

species of marine mammals, and Cook 

Inlet contains a relatively small 

proportion of marine mammals utilizing 

Cook Inlet; thus, the number harvested 

is expected to be extremely low. The 

timing and location of subsistence 

harvest of Cook Inlet harbor seals may 

coincide with SAE’s project, but 

because this subsistence hunt is 

conducted opportunistically and at such 

a low level (NMFS, 2013c), SAE’s 

program is not expected to have an 

impact on the subsistence use of harbor 

seals. Moreover, the proposed survey 

would result in only temporary 

disturbances. Accordingly, the specified 

activity would not impact the 

availability of these other marine 

mammal species for subsistence uses. 

NMFS anticipates that any effects 

from SAE’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 SAE’s proposed 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are three marine mammal 

species listed as endangered under the 

ESA with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the proposed project area: 

the Cook Inlet beluga whale, the western 

DPS of Steller sea lion, and the Central 

North Pacific humpback whale. In 

addition, the proposed action could 

occur within 10 miles of 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. This consultation 

will be concluded prior to issuing any 

final authorization. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS has prepared a Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

issuance of an IHA to SAE 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 authorization (see 

ADDRESSES). NMFS will finalize the EA 

and either conclude with a finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) or prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

prior to issuance of the final 

authorization (if issued). 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, we propose to issue an 

IHA to SAExploration Inc. for taking 

marine mammals incidental to a seismic 

survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided 

the previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. The proposed IHA 

language is provided next. 

This section contains a draft of the 

IHA itself. The wording contained in 

this section is proposed for inclusion in 

the IHA (if issued). 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analysis, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for 

SAExploration Inc. Please include with 

your comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform our 

final decision on SAE’s request for an 

MMPA authorization. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14938 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

SAExploration Inc. (SAE), 8240 

Sandlewood Place, Anchorage, Alaska 

99507, is hereby authorized under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)), to harass small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to specified activities associated with a 

marine geophysical (seismic) survey in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, contingent upon the 

following conditions: 

1. This Authorization is valid from 

April 1, 2015, through December 31, 

2015. 

2. This Authorization is valid only for 

SAE’s activities associated with seismic 

survey operations that shall occur 

within the areas denoted as Zone 1 and 

Zone 2 as depicted in the attached 

Figures 1 and 2 of SAE’s January 2015 

application to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

3. Species Authorized and Level of 

Take 

(a) The incidental taking of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

is limited to the following species in the 

waters of Cook Inlet: 

(i) Odontocetes: See Table 1 (attached) 

for authorized species and take 

numbers. 

(ii) Pinnipeds: See Table 1 (attached) 

for authorized species and take 

numbers. 

(iii) If any marine mammal species are 

encountered during seismic activities 

that are not listed in Table 1 (attached) 

for authorized taking and are likely to be 

exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms), then the Holder of this 

Authorization must alter speed or 

course, power down or shut-down the 

sound source to avoid take. 

(b) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment) serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in Table 1 or 

the taking of any kind of any other 

species of marine mammal is prohibited 

and may result in the modification, 

suspension or revocation of this 

Authorization. 

(c) If the number of detected takes of 

any marine mammal species listed in 

Table 1 is met or exceeded, SAE shall 

immediately cease survey operations 

involving the use of active sound 

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

notify NMFS. 

4. The authorization for taking by 

harassment is limited to the following 

acoustic sources (or sources with 

comparable frequency and intensity) 

absent an amendment to this 

Authorization: 

(a) Two airgun arrays, each with a 

capacity of 880 in3; 

(b) A 440 in3 airgun array; 

(c) A 10 in3 airgun; 

(d) A Scott Ultra-Short Baseline 

(USBL) transceiver; and 

(e) A Sonardyne TZ/OBC transponder. 

5. The taking of any marine mammal 

in a manner prohibited under this 

Authorization must be reported 

immediately to the Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS or her 

designee at (301) 427–8401. 

6. The holder of this Authorization 

must notify the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, or her designee at 

least 48 hours prior to the start of 

seismic survey activities (unless 

constrained by the date of issuance of 

this Authorization in which case 

notification shall be made as soon as 

possible) at 301–427–8484 or to 

Sara.Young@noaa.gov. 

7. Mitigation and Monitoring 

Requirements: The Holder of this 

Authorization is required to implement 

the following mitigation and monitoring 

requirements when conducting the 

specified activities to achieve the least 

practicable impact on affected marine 

mammal species or stocks: 

(a) Utilize a sufficient number of 

NMFS-qualified, vessel-based Protected 

Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) 

(except during meal times and restroom 

breaks, when at least one PSVO shall be 

on watch) to visually watch for and 

monitor marine mammals near the 

seismic source vessels during daytime 

operations (from nautical twilight-dawn 

to nautical twilight-dusk) and before 

and during start-ups of sound sources 

day or night. Two PSVOs will be on 

each source vessel, and two PSVOs will 

be on the support vessel to observe the 

exclusion and disturbance zones. 

PSVOs shall have access to reticle 

binoculars (7x50) and long-range 

binoculars (40x80). PSVO shifts shall 

last no longer than 4 hours at a time. 

PSVOs shall also make observations 

during daytime periods when the sound 

sources are not operating for 

comparison of animal abundance and 

behavior, when feasible. When 

practicable, as an additional means of 

visual observation, SAE’s vessel crew 

may also assist in detecting marine 

mammals. 

(b) In addition to the vessel-based 

PSVOs, utilize a shore-based station to 

visually monitor for marine mammals. 

The shore-based station will follow all 

safety procedures, including bear safety. 

The location of the shore-based station 

will need to be sufficiently high to 

observe marine mammals; the PSOs 

would be equipped with reticle 

binoculars (7x50) and long-range 

binoculars (40x80). The shore-based 

PSOs would scan the area prior to, 

during, and after the survey operations 

involving the use of sound sources, and 

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

sightings of marine mammals 

approaching or within the project area. 

(c) Record the following information 

when a marine mammal is sighted: 

(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 

approach, paralleling, etc., and 

including responses to ramp-up), and 

behavioral pace; 

(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel (including number 

of airguns operating and whether in 

state of ramp-up or power-down), 

Beaufort sea state and wind force, 

visibility, and sun glare; and 

(iii) The data listed under Condition 

7(d)(ii) shall also be recorded at the start 

and end of each observation watch and 

during a watch whenever there is a 

change in one or more of the variables. 

(d) Establish a 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

and 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) ‘‘exclusion 

zone’’ (EZ) for cetaceans and pinnipeds 

respectively before the full array (2400 

in3) is in operation; and a 180 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) EZ 

before a single airgun (10 in3) is in 

operation, respectively. 

(e) Visually observe the entire extent 

of the EZ (180 dB re 1 mPa [rms] for 

cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 mPa [rms] for 

pinnipeds) using NMFS-qualified 

PSVOs, for at least 30 minutes (min) 

prior to starting the airgun array (day or 

night). If the PSVO finds a marine 

mammal within the EZ, SAE must delay 

the seismic survey until the marine 

mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSVO 

sees a marine mammal that surfaces, 

then dives below the surface, the PSVO 

shall wait 30 min. If the PSVO sees no 

marine mammals during that time, they 

should assume that the animal has 

moved beyond the EZ. If for any reason 

the entire radius cannot be seen for the 

entire 30 min (i.e., rough seas, fog, 

darkness), or if marine mammals are 

near, approaching, or in the EZ, the 

airguns may not be ramped-up. 

(f) Implement a ‘‘ramp-up’’ procedure 

when starting up at the beginning of 

seismic operations or any time after the 

entire array has been shut down for 

more than 10 min, which means start 

the smallest sound source first and add 

sound sources in a sequence such that 

the source level of the array shall 

increase in steps not exceeding 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 14939 

approximately 6 dB per 5-min period. 

During ramp-up, the PSVOs shall 

monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals 

are sighted, a power-down, or shutdown 

shall be implemented as though the full 

array were operational. Therefore, 

initiation of ramp-up procedures from 

shutdown requires that the PSVOs be 

able to visually observe the full EZ as 

described in Condition 7(e) (above). 

(g) Alter speed or course during 

seismic operations if a marine mammal, 

based on its position and relative 

motion, appears likely to enter the 

relevant EZ. If speed or course alteration 

is not safe or practicable, or if after 

alteration the marine mammal still 

appears likely to enter the EZ, further 

mitigation measures, such as a powerdown or shutdown, shall be taken. 

(h) Power-down or shutdown the 

sound source(s) if a marine mammal is 

detected within, approaches, or enters 

the relevant EZ. A shutdown means all 

operating sound sources are shut down 

(i.e., turned off). A power-down means 

reducing the number of operating sound 

sources to a single operating 10 in3

airgun, which reduces the EZ to the 

degree that the animal(s) is no longer in 

or about to enter it. 

(i) Following a power-down, if the 

marine mammal approaches the smaller 

designated EZ, the sound sources must 

then be completely shut down. Seismic 

survey activity shall not resume until 

the PSVO has visually observed the 

marine mammal(s) exiting the EZ and is 

not likely to return, or has not been seen 

within the EZ for 15 min for species 

with shorter dive durations (small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min 

for species with longer dive durations 

(large odontocetes, including killer 

whales and beluga whales). 

(j) Following a power-down or 

shutdown and subsequent animal 

departure, survey operations may 

resume following ramp-up procedures 

described in Condition 7(g). 

(k) Marine geophysical surveys may 

continue into night and low-light hours 

if such segment(s) of the survey is 

initiated when the entire relevant EZs 

can be effectively monitored visually 

(i.e., PSVO(s) must be able to see the 

extent of the entire relevant EZ). 

(l) No initiation of survey operations 

involving the use of sound sources is 

permitted from a shutdown position at 

night or during low-light hours (such as 

in dense fog or heavy rain). 

(m) If a beluga whale is visually 

sighted approaching or within the 160- 

dB disturbance zone, survey activity 

will not commence or the sound 

source(s) shall be shut down until the 

animals are no longer present within the 

160-dB zone. 

(n) Whenever aggregations or groups 

of killer whales and/or harbor porpoises 

are detected approaching or within the 

160-dB disturbance zone, survey 

activity will not commence or the sound 

source(s) shall be shut-down until the 

animals are no longer present within the 

160-dB zone. An aggregation or group of 

whales/porpoises shall consist of five or 

more individuals of any age/sex class. 

(o) SAE 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 (to avoid any effects to 

belugas in an important feeding and 

breeding area). 

(p) Seismic survey operations 

involving the use of airguns and pingers 

must cease if takes of any marine 

mammal are met or exceeded. 

(q) The mitigation airgun will be 

operated at approximately one shot per 

minute and will not be operated for 

longer than three hours in duration 

during daylight hours and good 

visibility. 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. 

8. Reporting Requirements: The 

Holder of this Authorization is required 

to: 

(a) Submit a weekly field report, no 

later than close of business (Alaska 

time) each Thursday during the weeks 

when in-water seismic survey activities 

take place. The field reports will 

summarize species detected, in-water 

activity occurring at the time of the 

sighting, behavioral reactions to inwater activities, and the number of 

marine mammals taken. 

(b) Submit a monthly report, no later 

than the 15th of each month, to NMFS’ 

Permits and Conservation Division for 

all months during which in-water 

seismic survey activities occur. These 

reports must contain and summarize the 

following information: 

(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, 

speed, weather, sea conditions 

(including Beaufort sea state and wind 

force), and associated activities during 

all seismic operations and marine 

mammal sightings; 

(ii) Species, number, location, 

distance from the vessel, and behavior 

of any marine mammals, as well as 

associated seismic activity (number of 

power-downs and shutdowns), observed 

throughout all monitoring activities; 

(iii) An estimate of the number (by 

species) of: (A) Pinnipeds that have 

been exposed to the seismic activity 

(based on visual observation) at received 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 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 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. 

(iv) A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the: 

(A) Terms and conditions of the 

Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take 

Statement (ITS); and (B) mitigation 

measures of this Authorization. For the 

Biological Opinion, the report shall 

confirm the implementation of each 

Term and Condition, as well as any 

conservation recommendations, and 

describe their effectiveness, for 

minimizing the adverse effects of the 

action on Endangered Species Act-listed 

marine mammals. 

(c) Submit a draft Technical Report on 

all activities and monitoring results to 

NMFS’ Permits and Conservation 

Division within 90 days of the 

completion of the seismic survey. The 

Technical Report will include the 

following information: 

(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) estimates of take by Level B 

harassment based on presence in the 

160 dB harassment zone. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14940 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Notices 

(d) Submit a final report to the Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

within 30 days after receiving comments 

from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS 

decides that the draft report needs no 

comments, the draft report shall be 

considered to be the final report. 

(e) SAE must immediately report to 

NMFS if 25 belugas are detected within 

the 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) disturbance 

zone during seismic survey operations 

to allow NMFS to consider making 

necessary adjustments to monitoring 

and mitigation. 

9. (a) In the unanticipated event that 

the specified activity clearly causes the 

take of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this Authorization, such 

as an injury (Level A harassment), 

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

entanglement), SAE 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, or her designees by phone or 

email (telephone: 301–427–8401 or 

Sara.Young@noaa.gov), the Alaska 

Regional Office (telephone: 907–271– 

1332 or Barbara.Mahoney@noaa.gov), 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinators (telephone: 907–586–7248 

or Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov or 

Barbara.Mahoney@noaa.gov). The 

report must include the following 

information: 

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

longitude) of the incident; 

(ii) The name and type of vessel 

involved; 

(iii) The vessel’s speed during and 

leading up to the incident; 

(iv) Description of the incident; 

(v) Status of all sound source use in 

the 24 hours preceding the incident; 

(vi) Water depth; 

(vii) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

(viii) Description of marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(ix) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(x) The fate of the animal(s); and 

(xi) Photographs or video footage of 

the animal (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with SAE to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. SAE may not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS via 

letter or email, or telephone. 

(b) In the event that SAE 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), SAE 

will 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 (see contact 

information in Condition 9(a)). The 

report must include the same 

information identified in the Condition 

9(a) above. Activities may continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS will work with 

SAE to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

(c) In the event that SAE discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in Condition 

2 of this Authorization (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), SAE 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 (1–877–925–7773), and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators 

within 24 hours of the discovery (see 

contact information in Condition 9(a)). 

SAE shall provide photographs or video 

footage (if available) or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS and the Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network. Activities 

may continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. 

10. SAE is required to comply with 

the Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

and Terms and Conditions of the ITS 

corresponding to NMFS’ Biological 

Opinion issued to both U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers and NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources. 

11. A copy of this Authorization and 

the ITS must be in the possession of all 

contractors and PSOs operating under 

the authority of this Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

12. Penalties and Permit Sanctions: 

Any person who violates any provision 

of this Incidental Harassment 

Authorization is subject to civil and 

criminal penalties, permit sanctions, 

and forfeiture as authorized under the 

MMPA. 

13. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the Holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein or if the 

authorized taking is having more than a 

negligible impact on the species or stock 

of affected marine mammals, or if there 

is an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. 

lllllllllllllllllll

Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of 

Protected Resources National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

lllllllllllllllllll

Date 

TABLE 1—AUTHORIZED TAKE NUMBERS FOR EACH MARINE MAMMAL

SPECIES IN COOK INLET

Species 

Authorized 

take in the 

Cook Inlet 

action area 

Mysticetes 

Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) .................... 158 

Gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus) ........................... 7 

Minke whale ..........................

(Balaenoptera acutorostra) ... 1 

Odontocetes 

Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli) ......... 14 

Beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas) .... 30 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ... 55 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena) ......................... 219 

Pinnipeds 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus) ............................. 542 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 

richardsi) ........................... 1,223 

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06386 Filed 3–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1965] 

Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 

104 (Expansion of Service Area) Under 

Alternative Site Framework; Savannah, 

Georgia 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES