Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 9509-9541 [2015-03048]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9509-9541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03048]



[[Page 9509]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 35

February 23, 2015

Part II





 Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 217





 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental 
to Seismic Surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 9510]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 217

[Docket No. 140912776-5025-01]
RIN 0648-BE53


Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Apache Alaska Corporation 
(Apache) for authorization to take marine mammals, by harassment, 
incidental to its proposed oil and gas exploration seismic survey 
program in Cook Inlet, Alaska, between March 1, 2015, and February 29, 
2020. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 
requesting comments on its proposal to issue regulations and subsequent 
Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to Apache to incidentally harass marine 
mammals.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 
25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
0648-BE53, by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to: 
www.regulations.gov, enter NOAA-NMFS-2014-0144 in the ``Search'' box, 
click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and 
enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.
     Fax: 301-713-0376, Attn: Sara Young.
    Comments regarding any aspect of the collection of information 
requirement contained in this proposed rule should be sent to NMFS via 
one of the means stated here and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
Attn: Desk Office, Washington, DC 20503, OIRA@omb.eop.gov.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. 
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields 
if you wish to remain anonymous).
    An electronic copy of the application, containing a list of 
references used in this document, and the Draft Environmental 
Assessment (EA) may be obtained by writing to the address specified 
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 
proposed rule may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular 
business hours at the above address. To help NMFS process and review 
comments more efficiently, please use only one method to submit 
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Young or Ben Laws, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Summary of Request

    On July 11, 2014, NMFS received a complete application from Apache 
requesting authorization for the take of six marine mammal species 
incidental to an oil and gas exploration seismic program in Cook Inlet, 
AK, over the course of 5 years. The proposed activity would occur for 
approximately 8-9 months annually over the course of a 5-year period 
between March 1, 2015 and February 29, 2020. In-water airguns will only 
be active for approximately 2-3 hours during each of the slack tide 
periods. There are approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour 
period; therefore, airgun operations will be active during 
approximately 8-12 hours per day, if weather conditions allow. The 
following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to 
result in the take of marine mammals: Seismic airgun operations. Take, 
by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of six species or stocks of 
marine mammals is anticipated to result from the specified activity.
    This is the fourth request (but first request for 5-year 
regulations and annual LOAs) that NMFS has received from Apache for 
takes of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey 
program in Cook Inlet. On April 30, 2012, NMFS issued a 1-year 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Apache for their first 
season of seismic acquisition in Cook Inlet (77 FR 27720). NMFS issued 
a second 1-year IHA to Apache in February 2013 (78 FR 12720, February 
25, 2013). However, no seismic operations occurred in 2013. Most 
recently, NMFS issued a third IHA to Apache on March 4, 2014 to conduct 
3D seismic survey operations in Cook Inlet (79 FR 13626, March 11, 
2014). The third IHA expires on December 31, 2014.

[[Page 9511]]

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    Apache has acquired over 850,000 acres of oil and gas leases in 
Cook Inlet since 2010 with the primary objective to explore for and 
develop oil and gas resources in Cook Inlet. Apache proposes to conduct 
oil and gas seismic surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska, in an area that 
encompasses approximately 5,684 km\2\ (2,195 mi\2\) of intertidal and 
offshore areas. This area is slightly larger than that shown in 
Apache's MMPA application and corresponds with the request contained in 
their Biological Assessment and Figure 1 in this document, which is 
also available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm#apache2020. Vessels will lay and retrieve nodal sensors on 
the sea floor in periods of low current, or, in the case of the 
intertidal area, during high tide over a 24-hour period. In deep water, 
a hull or pole mounted pinger system will be used to determine the 
exact location of the nodes. The two instruments used in this technique 
are a transceiver (operating at 33-55kHz with a maximum source level of 
188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 meter) and a transponder (operating at 35-50kHz 
with a maximum source level of 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 meter). Apache 
proposes to use two synchronized vessels. Each source vessel will be 
equipped with compressors and 2,400 cubic inch (in\3\) airgun arrays. 
Additionally, one of the source vessels will be equipped with a 440 
in\3\ shallow water source array, which can be deployed at high tide in 
the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (6 ft) of water. The two source 
vessels do not fire the airguns simultaneously; rather, each vessel 
fires a shot every 24 seconds, leaving 12 seconds between shots.
    The operation will utilize two source vessels, three cable/nodal 
deployment and retrieval operations vessels, a mitigation/monitoring 
vessel, a node re-charging and housing vessel, and two small vessels 
for personnel transport and node support in the extremely shallow 
waters in the intertidal area. Water depths for the proposed program 
will range from 0-128 m (0-420 ft).
    Seismic surveys are designed to collect bathymetric and sub-
seafloor data that allow the evaluation of potential shallow faults, 
gas zones, and archeological features at prospective exploration 
drilling locations. In the spring of 2011, Apache conducted a seismic 
test program to evaluate the feasibility of using new nodal (no cables) 
technology seismic recording equipment for operations in Cook Inlet. 
This test program found and provided important input to assist in 
finalizing the design of the 3D seismic program in Cook Inlet (the 
nodal technology was determined to be feasible). Apache began seismic 
onshore acquisition on the west side of Cook Inlet in September 2011 
and offshore acquisition in May 2012 under an IHA issued by NMFS for 
April 30, 2012 through April 30, 2013 (77 FR 27720, May 11, 2012). 
Apache continued seismic data acquisition for approximately 3 months in 
spring and summer 2014 in compliance with an IHA issued on March 4, 
2014 (79 FR 13626, March 11, 2014).

Dates and Duration

    Apache proposes to acquire offshore/transition zone operations for 
approximately 8 to 9 months in offshore areas in open water periods 
from March 1 through December 31 annually over the course of 5 years. 
During each 24-hour period, seismic support activities may be conducted 
throughout the entire period; however, in-water airguns will only be 
active for approximately 2-3 hours during each of the slack tide 
periods. There are approximately four slack tide periods in a 24-hour 
period; therefore, airgun operations will be active during 
approximately 8-12 hours per day, if weather conditions allow. Two 
airgun source vessels will work concurrently on the spread, acquiring 
source lines approximately 12 km (7.5 mi) in length. Apache anticipates 
that a crew can acquire approximately 6.2 km\2\ (2.4 mi\2\) per day, 
assuming a crew can work 8-12 hours per day. Thus, the actual survey 
duration each year will take approximately 160 days over the course of 
8 to 9 months. The vessels will be mobilized out of Homer or Anchorage 
with resupply runs occurring multiple times per week out of Homer, 
Anchorage, or Nikiski.

Specified Geographic Region

    Each phase of the Apache program would encounter land, intertidal 
transition zone, and marine environments in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 
However, only the portions occurring in the intertidal zone and marine 
environments have the potential to take marine mammals. The land-based 
portion of the proposed program would not result in underwater sound 
levels that would rise to the level of a marine mammal take.
    The proposed location of Apache's acquisition plan is depicted in 
Figure 1 in this document. The total proposed seismic survey data 
acquisition locations encompass approximately 5,684 km\2\ (2,195 mi\2\) 
of intertidal and offshore areas. This area is approximately 18% larger 
than the area contained in Apache's MMPA application. The additional 
area proposed for seismic survey data acquisition considered in this 
proposed rule (and not originally noted in Apache's MMPA application) 
is located in northern Cook Inlet near the Susitna Delta region. Apache 
would only operate in a portion of this entire area between March 1 and 
December 31 each year. There are numerous factors that influence the 
survey areas, including the geology of the Cook Inlet area, other 
permitting restrictions (i.e., commercial fishing, Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game refuges), seismic imaging of leases held by other 
entities with whom Apache has agreements (e.g., data sharing), overlap 
of sources and receivers to obtain the necessary seismic imaging data, 
and general operational restrictions (ice, weather, environmental 
conditions, marine life activity, etc.). Water depths for the program 
will range from 0-128 m (0-420 ft).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 9512]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23FE15.000

Detailed Description of Activities

(1) Recording System
    The recording system is an autonomous system ``nodal'' (i.e., no 
cables), made up of at least two types of nodes; one for the land and 
one for the intertidal and marine environment. For the land operator, a 
single-component sensor land node will be used (see Figure 3 in 
Apache's application); the inter-tidal and marine zone operators will 
use a submersible multi-component system made up of three velocity 
sensors and a hydrophone (see Figure 4 in application). These systems 
have the ability to record continuous data. Inline receiver intervals 
for the node systems will be 50 m (165 ft). The nodes are deployed in 
patches for the seismic source and deployed for up to 15 days. The 
deployment length is limited by battery length and data storage 
capacity.
    The geometry methodology that Apache will use to gather seismic 
data is called patch shooting. This type of seismic survey requires the 
use of multiple vessels for cable layout/pickup, recording, and 
sourcing. Operations begin by laying node lines on the seafloor 
parallel to each other with a node line spacing of

[[Page 9513]]

approximately 402 m (1,320 ft). Apache's patch will have 6-8 node lines 
(receivers) that generally run perpendicular to the shoreline for 
transition zones and parallel to the shoreline for offshore areas. The 
node lines will be separated by either 402 or 503 m (1,320 or 1,650 
ft). Inline spacing between nodes will be 50 m (165 ft). The node 
vessels will lay the entire patch on the seafloor prior to the airgun 
activity. Individual vessels are capable of carrying up to 400 nodes. 
With three node vessels operating simultaneously, a patch can be laid 
down in a single 24-hour period, weather permitting. A sample 
transition zone patch is depicted in Figure 5 in Apache's application. 
A sample offshore patch is depicted in Figure 6 in Apache's 
application.
    As the patches are acquired, the node lines will be moved either 
side-to-side or inline to the next patch's location. Figure 7 in 
Apache's application depicts multiple side-to-side patches that are 
acquired individually but when seamed together at the processing phase, 
create continuous coverage along the coastline.
(2) Sensor Positioning
    Transition Zone/Offshore Components: Once the nodes are in place on 
the seafloor, the exact position of each node is required. There are 
several techniques used to locate the nodes on the seafloor, depending 
on the depth of the water. In very shallow water, the node positions 
are either surveyed by a land surveyor when the tide is low, or the 
position is accepted based on the position at which the navigator has 
laid the unit.
    In deeper water, a technique known as Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) 
will be used. This technique uses a hull or pole mounted pinger to send 
a signal to a transponder which is attached to each node. The 
transponders are coded, and the crew knows which transponder goes with 
which node prior to the layout. The transponder's response (once 
pinged) is added together with several other responses to create a 
suite of ranges and bearings between the pinger boat and the node. 
Those data are then calculated to precisely position the node. In good 
conditions, the nodes can be interrogated as they are laid out. It is 
also common for the nodes to be pinged after they have been laid out. 
The pinger that will be used is a Sonardyne Shallow Water Cable 
Positioning system. The two instruments used are a Scout USBL 
Transceiver that operates at a frequency of 33-55 kilohertz (kHz) at a 
max source level of 188 decibels referenced to one micro Pascal (dB re 
1 [mu]Pa) at 1 m; and a LR USBL Transponder that operates at a 
frequency of 35-50 kHz at a source level of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m.
    Onshore/Intertidal Components: Onshore and intertidal locating of 
source and receivers will be accomplished with Differential Global 
Positioning System/roving units (DGPS/RTK) equipped with telemetry 
radios which will be linked to a base station established on the M/V 
Arctic Wolf or similar vessel. Survey crews will have both helicopter 
and light tracked vehicle support. Offshore sound sources and receivers 
will be positioned with an integrated navigation system utilizing DGPS/
RTK link to the land located base stations. The integrated navigation 
system will be capable of many features that are critical to efficient 
safe operations. The system will include a hazard display system that 
can be loaded with known obstructions or exclusion zones. Typically the 
vessel displays are also loaded with the day-to-day operational 
hazards, buoys, etc. This display gives a quick reference when a 
potential question regarding positioning or tracking arises. In the 
case of inclement weather, the hazard display can and has been used to 
vector vessels to safety.
(3) Seismic Source
    Transition Zone/Offshore Components: Apache proposes to use two 
synchronized source vessels in time. The source vessels, M/V Peregrine 
Falcon and the M/V Arctic Wolf (or similar vessels), will be equipped 
with compressors and 2,400 in\3\ airgun arrays (1,200 in\3\, if 
feasible). The M/V Peregrine Falcon, or similar, will be equipped with 
a 440 in\3\ shallow water source, which it can deploy at high tide in 
the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (6 ft) of water. Most of the 
airgun sound energy is contained at frequencies below approximately 500 
Hz. The modeled broadband source level for the array was 251 dB re 1uPa 
peak and 238 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms. Source lines are oriented 
perpendicular to the node lines and parallel to the beach (see red 
lines on Figure 5 in Apache's application). The two source vessels will 
traverse source lines of the same patch using a shooting technique 
called ping/pong. The ping/pong methodology will have the first source 
boat commence the source effort. As the first airgun pop is initiated, 
the second gun boat is sent a command and begins a countdown to pop its 
guns 12 seconds later than the first vessel. The first source boat 
would then take its second pop 12 seconds after the second vessel has 
popped and so on. The vessels try to manage their speed so that they 
cover approximately 50 m (165 ft) between pops. The objective is to 
generate source positions for each of the two arrays close to a 50 m 
(165 ft) interval along each of the source lines in a patch. Vessel 
speeds range from 2-4 knots (2.3-4.6 miles/hour [mph]). The source 
effort will average 8-12 hours per day.
    Each source line is approximately 12.9 km (8 mi) long. A single 
vessel is capable of acquiring a source line in approximately 1 hour. 
With two source vessels operating simultaneously, a patch of 
approximately 3,900 source points can be acquired in a single day 
assuming a 10-12 hour source effort. When the data from the patch of 
nodes have been acquired, the node vessels pick up the patch and roll 
it to the next location. The pickup effort takes approximately 18 
hours.
    Onshore/Intertidal Components: The onshore source effort will be 
shot holes. These holes are drilled every 50 m (165 ft) along source 
lines which are orientated perpendicular to the receiver lines and 
parallel to the coast. To access the onshore drill sites, Apache would 
use a combination of helicopter portable and tracked vehicle drills. At 
each source location, Apache will drill to the prescribed hole depth of 
approximately 10 m (35 ft) and load it with 4 kilograms (kg) (8.8 
pounds [lbs]) of explosive (likely Orica OSX Pentolite Explosive). The 
hole will be capped with a ``smart cap'' that will make it impossible 
to detonate the explosive without the proper blaster. At the request of 
NMFS, Apache conducted sound source verification (SSV) of the onshore 
shot hole to determine if underwater received sound levels exceeded the 
NMFS thresholds for harassment. The results of the SSV confirmed 
received sound levels in the water are not expected to exceed NMFS's 
MMPA harassment thresholds (see Appendix A of Apache's application), 
therefore, onshore sources are not discussed further in this 
application. However, in the event that the planned charge depth of 10 
m (33 ft) is unattainable due to loose sediments collapsing the bore 
hole, then an SSV will be conducted on the new land-based charge depths 
to determine if they are within NMFS thresholds.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could 
occur near operations in Cook Inlet include four cetacean species: 
beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), killer whale (Orcinus orca), 
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and gray whale (Eschrichtius 
robustus) and two pinniped species: harbor seal (Phoca

[[Page 9514]]

vitulina richardsi) and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). The 
marine mammal species that is likely to be encountered most widely (in 
space and time) throughout the period of the planned surveys is the 
harbor seal. While killer and gray whales and Steller sea lions have 
been sighted in upper Cook Inlet, their occurrence is considered rare 
in that portion of the Inlet.
    Of the six marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed 
marine survey area, Cook Inlet beluga whales and one stock of Steller 
sea lions are listed as endangered under the ESA (Steller sea lions are 
divided into two distinct population segments (DPSs), an eastern and a 
western DPS; the relevant DPS in Cook Inlet is the western DPS). The 
eastern DPS was recently removed from the endangered species list (78 
FR 66139, November 4, 2013)).

                         Table 1--Table of Stocks Expected To Occur in the Project Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Stock abundance (CV,   Relative occurrence
                                                         ESA/MMPA       Nmin, most recent      in Cook Inlet;
           Species                     Stock           status; \1\      abundance survey)         season of
                                                     Strategic (Y/N)           \2\               occurrence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale...................  Eastern North         -; N...........  19,126 (0.071;        Rare migratory
                                Pacific.                               18,017; 2007).        visitor; late
                                                                                             winter.
Killer whale.................  Alaska Resident.....  -;N............  2,347 (N/A; 2,084;    Occasionally sighted
                                                                       2009).                in Lowe Cook Inlet.
                               Gulf of Alaska,       -:N............  345 (N/A; 303; 2003)
                                Aleutian Island,
                                Bering Sea
                                Transient.
Beluga whale.................  Cook Inlet..........  E/D;Y..........  312 (0.10; 280;       Use upper Inlet in
                                                                       2012).                summer and lower in
                                                                                             winter: annual.
Harbor porpoise..............  Gulf of Alaska......  -;Y............  31,046 (0.214;        Widespread in the
                                                                       25,987; 1998).        Inlet: annual (less
                                                                                             in winter).
Steller sea lion.............  Western DPS.........  E/D;Y..........  79,300 (N/A; 45,659;  Primarily found in
                                                                       2012).                lower Inlet.
Harbor seal..................  Alaska--Cook Inlet..  -;N............  22,900 (0.053;        Frequently found in
                                                                       21,896; 2006).        upper and lower
                                                                                             inlet; annual (more
                                                                                             in northern Inlet
                                                                                             in summer).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-)
  indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the
  MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote
  3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future.
  Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a
  strategic stock.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not
  applicable. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often
  pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the specie's (or similar species')
  life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the
  minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.

    Pursuant to the ESA, critical habitat has been designated for Cook 
Inlet beluga whales and Steller sea lions. The proposed action falls 
within critical habitat designated in Cook Inlet for beluga whales but 
is not within critical habitat designated for Steller sea lions. On 
April 11, 2011, NMFS announced the two areas of beluga whale critical 
habitat (76 FR 20180) comprising 7,800 km\2\ (3,013 mi\2\) of marine 
habitat. Designated beluga whale Critical Habitat Area 1 consists of 
1,909 km\2\ of Cook Inlet, north of Three Mile Creek and Point 
Possession. Critical Habitat Area 1 contains shallow tidal flats or 
mudflats and mouths of rivers that provide important areas for 
foraging, calving, molting, and escape from predators. High 
concentrations of beluga whales are often observed in these areas from 
spring through fall. Critical Habitat Area 2 consists of 5,891 km\2\ 
located south of Critical Habitat Area 1 and includes nearshore areas 
along western Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay. Critical Habitat Area 2 
consists of known fall and winter foraging and transit habitat for 
beluga whales, as well as spring and summer habitat for smaller 
concentrations of beluga whales. Apache's total proposed oil and gas 
exploration seismic operations area is 5,684 km\2\, of which a smaller 
portion would be surveyed over an eight to nine month period annually. 
Approximately 711 km\2\ of Apache's proposed seismic survey area is in 
the designated beluga whale Critical Habitat Area 1 and approximately 
4,200 km\2\ is in the designated beluga whale Critical Habitat Area 2.
    There are several species of mysticetes that have been observed 
infrequently in lower Cook Inlet, including minke whale (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and fin whale 
(Balaenoptera physalus). Because of their infrequent occurrence in the 
location of seismic acquisition, they are not included in this proposed 
rule. Sea otters also occur in Cook Inlet. However, sea otters are 
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are therefore not 
considered further in this proposed rule.

Cetaceans

1. Beluga Whales
    Despite the ESA listing and critical habitat designations already 
mentioned, Cook Inlet beluga whales have not made significant progress 
towards recovery. Data indicate that the Cook Inlet population of 
beluga whales (which was listed in 2008) has been decreasing at a rate 
of 0.6 percent annually between 2002 and 2012 (Allen and Angliss, 
2014). One review of the status of the population indicated that there 
is an 80% chance that the population will decline further (Hobbs and 
Shelden, 2008).
    Cook Inlet beluga whales reside in Cook Inlet year-round although 
their distribution and density changes seasonally. Factors that are 
likely to influence beluga whale distribution within the inlet include 
prey availability, predation pressure, sea-ice cover and other 
environmental factors, reproduction, sex and age class, and human 
activities (Rugh et al., 2000; NMFS 2008). Seasonal movement and 
density patterns as well as site fidelity appear to be closely linked 
to prey availability, coinciding with seasonal salmon and eulachon 
concentrations (Moore et al., 2000). For example, during spring and 
summer, beluga whales are generally concentrated near the warmer waters 
of river mouths where prey availability is high and predator occurrence 
is low (Huntington 2000; Moore et al., 2000). During the

[[Page 9515]]

winter (November to April), belugas disperse throughout the upper and 
mid-inlet areas, with animals found between Kalgin Island and Point 
Possession (Rugh et al., 2000). During these months, there are 
generally fewer observations of beluga whales in the Anchorage and Knik 
Arm area (NMML 2004; Rugh et al., 2004).
    Beluga whales use several areas of the upper Cook Inlet for 
repeated summer and fall feeding. The primary hotspots for beluga 
feeding include the Big and Little Susitna rivers, Eagle Bay to Eklutna 
River, Ivan Slough, Theodore River, Lewis River, and Chickaloon River 
and Bay (NMFS, 2008). Availability of prey species appears to be the 
most influential environmental variable affecting Cook Inlet beluga 
whale distribution and relative abundance (Moore et al., 2000). The 
patterns and timing of eulachon and salmon runs have a strong influence 
on beluga whale feeding behavior and their seasonal movements (Nemeth 
et al., 2007; NMFS, 2008). The presence of prey species may account for 
the seasonal changes in beluga group size and composition (Moore et 
al., 2000). Aerial and vessel-based monitoring conducted by Apache 
during the March 2011 2D test program in Cook Inlet reported 33 beluga 
sightings. One of the sightings was of a large group (~25 individuals 
on March 27, 2011) of feeding/milling belugas near the mouth of the 
Drift River. If belugas are present during the late summer/early fall, 
they are more likely to occur in shallow areas near river mouths in 
upper Cook Inlet. For example, no beluga whales were sighted in Trading 
Bay during the SSV conducted in September 2011 because during that time 
of year they are more likely to be in the upper regions of Cook Inlet.
2. Killer Whales
    In general, killer whales are rare in upper Cook Inlet. Transient 
killer whales are known to feed on beluga whales, and resident killer 
whales are known to feed on anadromous fish (Shelden et al., 2003). The 
availability of these prey species largely determines the likeliest 
times for killer whales to be in the area. Between 1993 and 2004, 23 
sightings of killer whales were reported in the lower Cook Inlet during 
aerial surveys by Rugh et al. (2005). Surveys conducted over a span of 
20 years by Shelden et al. (2003) reported 11 sightings in upper Cook 
Inlet between Turnagain Arm, Susitna Flats, and Knik Arm. No killer 
whales were spotted during surveys by Funk et al. (2005), Ireland et 
al. (2005), Brueggeman et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2008), or Prevel Ramos et 
al. (2006, 2008). Eleven killer whale strandings have been reported in 
Turnagain Arm, six in May 1991 and five in August 1993. NMFS aerial 
survey data spanning 13 years conducted in June each year have reported 
sightings ranging from 0 to 33 whales in a single year. Sightings data 
can be found in Table 5 of Apache's application. Therefore, very few 
killer whales, if any, are expected to approach or be in the vicinity 
of the action area.
3. Harbor Porpoise
    Previously estimated density for harbor porpoises in Cook Inlet is 
7.2 per 1,000 km\2\ (Dahlheim et al., 2000), suggesting that only a 
small number use Cook Inlet. Data from NMFS aerial surveys (Table 5 in 
Apache's application) flown annually in June from 2000-2012 sighted 
anywhere from 0 to 100 porpoises in a single season. The densities 
derived from this data range from 0 to 0.014 animals per km\2\. Harbor 
porpoise have been reported in lower Cook Inlet from Cape Douglas to 
the West Foreland, Kachemak Bay, and offshore (Rugh et al., 2005). 
Small numbers of harbor porpoises have been consistently reported in 
upper Cook Inlet between April and October, but more recent 
observations have recorded higher numbers (Prevel Ramos et al., 2008). 
Prevel Ramos et al. (2008) reported 17 harbor porpoises from spring to 
fall 2006, while other studies reported 14 in the spring of 2007 
(Brueggeman et al. 2007) and 12 in the fall of 2007 (Brueggeman et al. 
2008). During the spring and fall of 2007, 129 harbor porpoises were 
reported between Granite Point and the Susitna River; however, the 
reason for the increase in numbers of harbor porpoise in the upper Cook 
Inlet remains unclear and the disparity between this result and past 
sightings suggests that it may be an anomaly. The spike in reported 
sightings occurred in July, which was followed by sightings of 79 
harbor porpoises in August, 78 in September, and 59 in October 2007. It 
is important to note that the number of porpoises counted more than 
once was unknown, which suggests that the actual numbers are likely 
smaller than those reported. In 2012, Apache marine mammal observers 
recorded 137 sightings of 190 estimated individuals; a similar count to 
the 2007 spike previously observed. In addition, recent passive 
acoustic research in Cook Inlet by the Alaska Department of Fish and 
Game and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory have indicated that 
harbor porpoises occur in the area more frequently than previously 
thought, particularly in the West Foreland area in the spring (NMFS 
2011); however overall numbers are still unknown at this time.
4. Gray Whale
    Numbers of gray whales in Cook Inlet are small compared to the 
overall population (18,017 individuals). However, Apache marine mammal 
observers recorded nine sightings of nine individuals (including 
possible resights of the same animals) from May-July 2012. Of those 
sightings, seven were observed from project vessels, and two were 
observed from land-based observation stations. The eastern North 
Pacific gray whales observed in Cook Inlet are likely migrating to 
summer feeding grounds in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, 
though a small number feed along the coast between Kodiak Island and 
northern California (Matkin, 2009; Carretta et al., 2014). NMFS aerial 
surveys flown annually in June have not sighted a gray whale during 
survey season since 2001. Occurrences in the seismic survey area 
(especially in the upper parts of the Inlet) are expected to be low.

Pinnipeds

    Two species of pinnipeds may be encountered in Cook Inlet: Harbor 
seal and Steller sea lion.
1. Harbor Seals
    Harbor seals inhabit the coastal and estuarine waters of Cook 
Inlet. Historically, harbor seals have been more abundant in lower Cook 
Inlet than in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a,b). Harbor seals are 
non-migratory; their movements are associated with tides, weather, 
season, food availability, and reproduction. The major haulout sites 
for harbor seals are located in lower Cook Inlet, and their presence in 
the upper inlet coincides with seasonal runs of prey species. For 
example, harbor seals are commonly observed along the Susitna River and 
other tributaries along upper Cook Inlet during the eulachon and salmon 
migrations (NMFS, 2003). During aerial surveys of upper Cook Inlet in 
2001, 2002, and 2003, harbor seals were observed 24 to 96 km (15 to 60 
mi) south-southwest of Anchorage at the Chickaloon, Little Susitna, 
Susitna, Ivan, McArthur, and Beluga Rivers (Rugh et al., 2005). NMFS 
aerial surveys flown in June have reported sightings ranging from 956 
to 2037 harbor seals over the course of surveys from 2000 to 2012. 
Apache aerial observers recorded approximately 900 harbor seals north 
of the Forelands in 2012 (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2013). Moreover, 
preliminary reports from Apache's 2014 vessel, aerial, and land 
observations suggest

[[Page 9516]]

harbor seals may be more abundant north of the Forelands than 
previously understood. During the 2D test program in March 2011, two 
harbor seals were observed by vessel-based PSOs. On March 25, 2011, one 
harbor seal was observed approximately 400 m (0.2 mi) from the M/V Miss 
Diane. At the time of the observation, the vessel was operating the 
positioning pinger, and PSOs instructed the operator to implement a 
shut-down. The pinger was shut down for 30 minutes while PSOs monitored 
the area and re-started the device when the animal was not sighted 
again during the 30 minute site clearing protocol. No unusual behaviors 
were reported during the time the animal was observed. The second 
harbor seal was observed on March 26, 2011, by vessel-based PSO onboard 
the M/V Dreamcatcher approximately 4,260 m (2.6 mi) from the source 
vessel, which was operating the 10 in\3\ airgun at the time. NMFS and 
Apache do not anticipate encountering large haulouts of seals (the 
closest haulout site to the action area is located on Kalgin Island, 
which is approximately 22 km [14 mi] south of the McArthur River), but 
we do expect to see curious individual harbor seals; especially during 
large fish runs in the various rivers draining into Cook Inlet.
    Important harbor seal life functions, such as breeding and molting 
may occur within portions of Apache's proposed survey area in June and 
August, but the co-occurrence is expected to be minimal. From November 
through January, harbor seals leave Cook Inlet to forage in Shelikof 
Strait (Boveng et al., 2007).
2. Steller Sea Lion
    Two separate stocks of Steller sea lions are recognized within U.S. 
waters: An eastern DPS, which includes animals east of Cape Suckling, 
Alaska; and a western DPS, which includes animals west of Cape Suckling 
(NMFS, 2008). Individuals in Cook Inlet are considered part of the 
western DPS, which is listed as endangered under the ESA.
    Regional variation in trends in Steller sea lion pup counts in 
2000-2012 is similar to that of non-pup counts (Johnson and Fritz, 
2014). Overall, there is strong evidence that pup counts in the western 
stock in Alaska increased (1.45 percent annually). Between 2004 and 
2008, Alaska western non-pup counts increased only 3%: Eastern Gulf of 
Alaska (Prince William Sound area) counts were higher and Kenai 
Peninsula through Kiska Island counts were stable, but western Aleutian 
counts continued to decline. Johnson and Fritz (2014) analyzed western 
Steller sea lion population trends in Alaska and noted that there was 
strong evidence that non-pup counts in the western stock in Alaska 
increased between 2000 and 2012 (average rate of 1.67 percent 
annually). However, there continues to be considerable regional 
variability in recent trends across the range in Alaska, with strong 
evidence of a positive trend east of Samalga Pass and strong evidence 
of a decreasing trend to the west (Allen and Angliss, 2014).
    Steller sea lions primarily occur in lower, rather than upper Cook 
Inlet and are rarely sighted north of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. 
NMFS aerial surveys conducted in June, primarily in lower Cook Inlet, 
have sighted 0 to 104 Stellers during survey seasons ranging from 2000 
to 2012. Haul-outs and rookeries are located near Cook Inlet at Gore 
Point, Elizabeth Island, Perl Island, and Chugach Island (NMFS, 2008). 
No Steller sea lion haul-outs or rookeries are located in the vicinity 
of the proposed seismic survey. Furthermore, no sightings of Steller 
sea lions were reported by Apache during the 2D test program in March 
2011. During the 3D seismic survey, one Steller sea lion was observed 
from the M/V Dreamcatcher on August 18, 2012, during a period when the 
air guns were not active. Although Apache has requested takes of 
Steller sea lions, Steller sea lions would be rare in the action area 
during seismic survey operations.
    Apache's application contains more information on the status, 
distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the 
species under NMFS jurisdiction mentioned in this document. Please 
refer to the application for that information (see ADDRESSES). 
Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment 
Reports (SAR). The Alaska 2013 SAR is available on the Internet at: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ak2013_final.pdf.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components (e.g., seismic airgun operations, vessel movement) of the 
specified activity, including mitigation, may impact marine mammals. 
The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this 
document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of 
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how 
this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the 
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section, the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, and the 
``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on 
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
    Operating active acoustic sources, such as airgun arrays, has the 
potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority of 
anticipated impacts would be from the use of acoustic sources.

Acoustic Impacts

    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data. 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (note that animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and 
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
30 kHz;
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz;
     Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated 
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; and
     Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is 
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, six marine mammal species 
(four cetacean and two pinniped

[[Page 9517]]

species) are likely to occur in the proposed seismic survey area. Of 
the four cetacean species likely to occur in Apache's proposed project 
area, one is classified as a low-frequency cetacean (gray whale), two 
are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and killer 
whales), and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., 
harbor porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). Of the two pinniped species 
likely to occur in Apache's proposed project area, one is classified as 
a phocid (i.e., harbor seal), and one is classified as an otariid 
(i.e., Steller sea lion). A species's functional hearing group is a 
consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on 
marine mammals.
1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals
    The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more 
of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-
auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in previous 
NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly 
variable, often depending on species and contextual factors (based on 
Richardson et al., 1995).
    Tolerance: Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from air 
guns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many 
kilometers. Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at 
distances more than a few kilometers from operating survey vessels 
often show no apparent response. That is often true even in cases when 
the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on 
measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal 
group. In general, pinnipeds and small odontocetes (toothed whales) 
seem to be more tolerant of exposure to air gun pulses than baleen 
whales. Although various toothed whales, and (less frequently) 
pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under 
some conditions, at other times, mammals of both types have shown no 
overt reactions. Weir (2008) observed marine mammal responses to 
seismic pulses from a 24 airgun array firing a total volume of either 
5,085 in\3\ or 3,147 in\3\ in Angolan waters between August 2004 and 
May 2005. Weir recorded a total of 207 sightings of humpback whales (n 
= 66), sperm whales (n = 124), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) 
and reported that there were no significant differences in encounter 
rates (sightings/hr) for humpback and sperm whales according to the 
airgun array's operational status (i.e., active versus silent).
    Behavioral Disturbance: Marine mammals may behaviorally react to 
sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions 
are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number 
of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral 
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response 
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); 
avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight 
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or 
rookeries).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification have the potential to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Examples of 
behavioral modifications that could impact growth, survival or 
reproduction include:
     Drastic changes in diving/surfacing/swimming patterns that 
lead to stranding (such as those associated with beaked whale 
strandings related to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical 
sonar);
     Habitat abandonment (temporary or permanent) due to loss 
of desirable acoustic environment; and
     Disruption of feeding or social interaction resulting in 
significant energetic costs, inhibited breeding, or cow-calf 
separation.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al., 2007).
    Toothed whales. Few systematic data are available describing 
reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. However, systematic work 
on sperm whales is underway (Tyack et al., 2003), and there is an 
increasing amount of information about responses of various odontocetes 
to seismic surveys based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; 
Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and Miller, 2005).
    Seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see 
dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, 
but, in general, there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to 
show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun 
systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic 
vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel 
even when large arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, there have 
been indications that small toothed whales sometimes move away or 
maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel when a large array 
of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; 
Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003). The beluga may be a species 
that (at least in certain geographic areas) shows long-distance 
avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic operations 
in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of 
beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic 
vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga 
sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting 
that some belugas might have been avoiding the seismic operations at 
distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) (Miller et al., 2005).
    Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of more relevance in this project) 
beluga whales exhibit changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed 
sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys 
(Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). However, the animals tolerated high 
received levels of sound (pk-pk level >200 dB re 1 [mu]Pa) before 
exhibiting aversive behaviors.
    Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United 
Kingdom from 1997-2000 have provided data on the occurrence and 
behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 
2003; Gordon et al., 2004). Killer whales were found to be 
significantly farther from large airgun arrays during periods of 
shooting compared with periods of no shooting. The displacement of the 
median distance from the array was approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) or 
more. Killer whales also appear to be more tolerant of seismic shooting 
in deeper water.
    Reactions of toothed whales to large arrays of airguns are variable 
and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius 
than has been observed for mysticetes. However, based on the limited 
existing evidence, belugas should not be grouped with delphinids in the 
``less responsive'' category.
    Pinnipeds. Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance 
reaction to the airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from 
seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of

[[Page 9518]]

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 in\3\. The combined results 
suggest that some seals avoid the immediate area around seismic 
vessels. In most survey years, ringed seal sightings tended to be 
farther away from the seismic vessel when the airguns were operating 
than when they were not (Moulton and Lawson, 2002). However, these 
avoidance movements were relatively small, on the order of 100 m (328 
ft) to a few hundreds of meters, and many seals remained within 100-200 
m (328-656 ft) of the trackline as the operating airgun array passed 
by. Seal sighting rates at the water surface were lower during airgun 
array operations than during no-airgun periods in each survey year 
except 1997. Similarly, seals are often very tolerant of pulsed sounds 
from seal-scaring devices (Mate and Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and Curry, 
1994; Richardson et al., 1995a). However, initial telemetry work 
suggests that avoidance and other behavioral reactions by two other 
species of seals to small airgun sources may at times be stronger than 
evident to date from visual studies of pinniped reactions to airguns 
(Thompson et al., 1998). Even if reactions of the species occurring in 
the present study area are as strong as those evident in the telemetry 
study, reactions are expected to be confined to relatively small 
distances and durations, with no long-term effects on pinniped 
individuals or populations.
    Masking: Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other 
sounds, often at similar frequencies. Marine mammals use acoustic 
signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but 
include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging, 
reproduction, avoiding predators, and learning about their environment 
(Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). Masking, or auditory 
interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment are 
louder than, and of a similar frequency to, auditory signals an animal 
is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals 
trying to receive acoustic information about their environment, 
including sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey, 
and sounds that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking 
these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, 
groups of animals, or entire populations.
    Masking occurs when anthropogenic sounds and signals (that the 
animal utilizes) overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the 
airgun sound generated from the proposed seismic surveys, sound will 
consist of low frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short 
durations (less than one second). Lower frequency man-made sounds are 
more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other 
potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There 
is little concern regarding masking near the sound source due to the 
brief duration of these pulses and relatively longer silence between 
air gun shots (approximately 12 seconds). However, at long distances 
(over tens of kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and 
reverberation, the durations of airgun pulses can be ``stretched'' to 
seconds with long decays (Madsen et al., 2006), although the intensity 
of the sound is greatly reduced.
    This could affect communication signals used by low frequency 
mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the 
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause 
increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009); 
however, no baleen whales are expected to occur within the proposed 
action area. Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for 
masking by adjusting their acoustic behavior by shifting call 
frequencies, and/or increasing call volume and vocalization rates. For 
example, blue whales are found to increase call rates when exposed to 
seismic survey noise in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark, 
2010). The North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) exposed to 
high shipping noise increase call frequency (Parks et al., 2007), while 
some humpback whales respond to low-frequency 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

[[Page 9519]]

marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva et al. (1980) found that, for the 
bottlenose dolphin, the angular separation between a sound source and a 
masking noise source had little effect on the degree of masking when 
the sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast to the pronounced effect at 
higher frequencies. Directional hearing has been demonstrated at 
frequencies as low as 0.5-2 kHz in several marine mammals, including 
killer whales (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability may be useful in 
reducing masking at these frequencies. In summary, high levels of sound 
generated by anthropogenic activities may act to mask the detection of 
weaker biologically important sounds by some marine mammals. This 
masking may be more prominent for lower frequencies. For higher 
frequencies, such as that used in echolocation by toothed whales, 
several mechanisms are available that may allow them to reduce the 
effects of such masking.
    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals 
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an 
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound 
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift 
(TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or 
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to 
days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific 
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of 
hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 
be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity 
might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is 
permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a 
specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.
    The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role 
in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear 
that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment 
within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, 
displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and 
post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output 
(Southall et al., 2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal 
pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the 
amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As 
amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, so, generally, does 
the amount of TS, along with the recovery time. For intermittent 
sounds, less TS could occur than compared to a continuous exposure with 
the same energy (some recovery could occur between intermittent 
exposures depending on the duty cycle between sounds) (Kryter et al., 
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one short but loud (higher SPL) sound 
exposure may induce the same impairment as one longer but softer sound, 
which in turn may cause more impairment than a series of several 
intermittent softer sounds with the same total energy (Ward, 1997). 
Additionally, though TTS is temporary, prolonged exposure to sounds 
strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels 
well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial 
mammals (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of the seismic survey, 
animals are not expected to be exposed to levels high enough or 
durations long enough to result in PTS.
    PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007). 
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause 
PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the 
elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner 
ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear 
fluids (Southall et al., 2007).
    Although the published body of scientific literature contains 
numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing 
impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound, only a few 
studies provide empirical information on the levels at which noise-
induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in nonhuman animals. For 
marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose 
dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; 
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 
2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et 
al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data 
are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, 
and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 
2012b).
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious 
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a 
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively 
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs 
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many 
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer 
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical 
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious 
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects 
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered 
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared 
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during 
the proposed seismic surveys in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid 
the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other 
marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but 
their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as 
those of cetaceans, and occasionally they seem to be attracted to 
operating seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010).
    Non-auditory Physical Effects: Non-auditory physical effects might 
occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. 
Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that 
theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source 
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types 
of organ or tissue damage. Some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked 
whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when 
exposed to strong pulsed sounds.
    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

[[Page 9520]]

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-pituitary-adrenal 
system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-
pituitary-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 free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton et al., 
1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; 
Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 
2000). Although no information has been collected on the physiological 
responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound exposure, studies of 
other marine animals and terrestrial animals would lead us to expect 
some marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and, 
perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as 
``distress'' upon exposure to anthropogenic sounds.
    For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between 
acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of 
stress responses in humans (e.g., elevated respiration and increased 
heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance 
when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance. 
Trimper et al. (1998) reported on the physiological stress responses of 
osprey to low-level aircraft noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 
reported on the auditory and physiology stress responses of endangered 
Sonoran pronghorn to military overflights. Smith et al. (2004a, 2004b) 
identified noise-induced 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 non-auditory 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

[[Page 9521]]

even for marine mammals in close proximity to large arrays of airguns. 
In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic 
vessels, including belugas and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely 
to incur non-auditory impairment or other physical effects. Therefore, 
it is unlikely that such effects would occur during Apache's proposed 
surveys given the brief duration of exposure and the planned monitoring 
and mitigation measures described later in this document.
    Stranding and Mortality: Marine mammals close to underwater 
detonations of high explosive can be killed or severely injured, and 
the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. 
1993; Ketten 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and their peak 
amplitudes have slower rise times. To date, there is no evidence that 
serious injury, death, or stranding by marine mammals can occur from 
exposure to air gun pulses, even in the case of large air gun arrays.
    However, in numerous past IHA notices for seismic surveys, 
commenters have referenced two stranding events allegedly associated 
with seismic activities, one off Baja California and a second off 
Brazil. NMFS has addressed this concern several times, including in the 
Federal Register notice announcing the IHA for Apache's first seismic 
survey in 2012. Without new information, NMFS does not believe that 
this issue warrants further discussion. For information relevant to 
strandings of marine mammals, readers are encouraged to review NMFS's 
response to comments on this matter found in 69 FR 74905 (December 14, 
2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 (August 24, 2006), 71 
FR 49418 (August 23, 2006), and 77 FR 27720 (May 11, 2012).
    It should be noted that strandings related to sound exposure have 
not been recorded for marine mammal species in Cook Inlet. Beluga whale 
strandings in Cook Inlet are not uncommon; however, these events often 
coincide with extreme tidal fluctuations (``spring tides'') or killer 
whale sightings (Shelden et al., 2003). For example, in August 2012, a 
group of Cook Inlet beluga whales stranded in the mud flats of 
Turnagain Arm during low tide and were able to swim free with the flood 
tide. No strandings or marine mammals in distress were observed during 
the 2D test survey conducted by Apache in March 2011, and none were 
reported by Cook Inlet inhabitants. Furthermore, no strandings were 
reported during seismic survey operations conducted under the April 
2012 IHA. As a result, NMFS does not expect any marine mammals will 
incur serious injury or mortality in Cook Inlet or strand as a result 
of the proposed seismic survey.
2. Potential Effects From Pingers on Marine Mammals
    Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed 
for Apache's 5-year oil and gas exploration seismic survey program in 
Cook Inlet. The specifications for the pingers (source levels and 
frequency ranges) were provided earlier in this document. In general, 
pingers are known to cause behavioral disturbance and are commonly used 
to deter marine mammals from commercial fishing gear or fish farms. Due 
to the potential to change marine mammal behavior, shut downs described 
for airguns will also be applied to pinger use.
3. Potential Effects From Aircraft Noise on Marine Mammals
    Apache plans to utilize aircraft to conduct aerial surveys near 
river mouths in order to identify locations or congregations of beluga 
whales and other marine mammals prior to the commencement of 
operations. The aircraft will not be used every day but will be used 
for surveys near river mouths. Aerial surveys will fly at an altitude 
of 305 m (1,000 ft) when practicable and weather conditions permit. In 
the event of a marine mammal sighting, aircraft will try to maintain a 
radial distance of 457 m (1,500 ft) from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft 
will avoid approaching marine mammals from head-on, flying over or 
passing the shadow of the aircraft over the marine mammals.
    Studies on the reactions of cetaceans to aircraft show little 
negative response (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, reactions 
range from sudden dives and turns and are typically found to decrease 
if the animals are engaged in feeding or social behavior. Whales with 
calves or in confined waters may show more of a response. Generally 
there has been little or no evidence of marine mammals responding to 
aircraft overflights when altitudes are at or above 305 m (1,000 ft), 
based on three decades of flying experience in the Arctic (NMFS, 
unpublished data). Based on long-term studies that have been conducted 
on beluga whales in Cook Inlet since 1993, NMFS expect that there will 
be no effects of this activity on beluga whales or other cetaceans. No 
change in beluga swim directions or other noticeable reactions have 
been observed during the Cook Inlet aerial surveys flown from 183 to 
244 m (600 to 800 ft) (e.g., Rugh et al., 2000). By applying the 
operational requirements discussed above, sound levels underwater are 
not expected to rise to the level of take.
    The majority of observations of pinnipeds reacting to aircraft 
noise are associated with animals hauled out on land or ice. There are 
few data describing the reactions of pinnipeds in water to aircraft 
(Richardson et al., 1995). In the presence of aircraft, pinnipeds 
hauled out for pupping or molting generally became alert and then 
rushed or slipped (when on ice) into the water. Stampedes often result 
from this response and may increase pup mortality due to crushing or an 
increase rate of pup abandonment. The greatest reactions from hauled 
out pinnipeds were observed when low flying aircraft passed directly 
above the animal(s) (Richardson et al., 1995). Although noise 
associated with aircraft activity could cause hauled out pinnipeds to 
rush into the water, there are no known haul out sites in the vicinity 
of the survey site. Therefore, the operation of aircraft during the 
seismic survey is not expected to result in the harassment of 
pinnipeds. To minimize the noise generated by aircraft, Apache will 
follow NMFS's Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations found on 
the Internet at: https://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm.

Vessel Impacts

    Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will 
temporarily increase in the action area during Apache's seismic survey 
as a result of the operation of nine vessels. To minimize the effects 
of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, Apache will 
follow NMFS's Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations and will 
alter heading or speed if a marine mammal gets too close to a vessel. 
In addition, vessels will be operating at slow speed (2-4 knots) when 
conducting surveys and in a purposeful manner to and from work sites in 
as direct a route as possible. Marine mammal monitoring observers and 
passive acoustic devices will alert vessel captains as animals are 
detected to ensure safe and effective measures are applied to avoid 
coming into direct contact with marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS neither 
anticipates nor authorizes takes of marine mammals from ship strikes.
    Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor 
porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may 
react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or 
were previously

[[Page 9522]]

harassed by vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Beluga whale response to 
vessel noise varies greatly from tolerance to extreme sensitivity 
depending on the activity of the whale and previous experience with 
vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Reactions to vessels depend on whale 
activities and experience, habitat, boat type, and boat behavior 
(Richardson et al., 1995) and may include behavioral responses, such as 
altered headings or avoidance (Blane and Jaakson, 1994; Erbe and 
Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; changes in vocalizations (Lesage et al., 
1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in dive, surfacing, and 
respiration patterns.
    There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel 
activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson et al., 
1995). Generally, sea lions in water show tolerance to close and 
frequently approaching vessels and sometimes show interest in fishing 
vessels. They are less tolerant when hauled out on land; however, they 
rarely react unless the vessel approaches within 100-200 m (330-660 ft; 
reviewed in Richardson et al., 1995).

Entanglement

    Although some of Apache's equipment contains cables or lines, the 
risk of entanglement is extremely remote. Additionally, mortality from 
entanglement is not anticipated. The material used by Apache and the 
amount of slack is not anticipated to allow for marine mammal 
entanglements.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other 
marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by 
airguns and other active acoustic sources. However, other potential 
impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also 
possible. This section describes the potential impacts to marine mammal 
habitat from the specified activity. Because the marine mammals in the 
area feed on fish and/or invertebrates there is also information on the 
species typically preyed upon by the marine mammals in the area. As 
noted earlier, upper Cook Inlet is an important feeding and calving 
area for the Cook Inlet beluga whale, and critical habitat has been 
designated for this species in the proposed seismic survey area.

Common Marine Mammal Prey in the Project Area

    Fish are the primary prey species for marine mammals in upper Cook 
Inlet. Beluga whales feed on a variety of fish, shrimp, squid, and 
octopus (Burns and Seaman, 1986). Common prey species in Knik Arm 
include salmon, eulachon and cod. Harbor seals feed on fish such as 
pollock, cod, capelin, eulachon, Pacific herring, and salmon, as well 
as a variety of benthic species, including crabs, shrimp, and 
cephalopods. Harbor seals are also opportunistic feeders with their 
diet varying with season and location. The preferred diet of the harbor 
seal in the Gulf of Alaska consists of pollock, octopus, capelin, 
eulachon, and Pacific herring (Calkins, 1989). Other prey species 
include cod, flat fishes, shrimp, salmon, and squid (Hoover, 1988). 
Harbor porpoises feed primarily on Pacific herring, cod, whiting 
(hake), pollock, squid, and octopus (Leatherwood et al., 1982). In the 
upper Cook Inlet area, harbor porpoise feed on squid and a variety of 
small schooling fish, which would likely include Pacific herring and 
eulachon (Bowen and Siniff, 1999; NMFS, unpublished data). Killer 
whales feed on either fish or other marine mammals depending on genetic 
type (resident versus transient respectively). Killer whales in Knik 
Arm are typically the transient type (Shelden et al., 2003) and feed on 
beluga whales and other marine mammals, such as harbor seal and harbor 
porpoise. The Steller sea lion diet consists of a variety of fishes 
(capelin, cod, herring, mackerel, pollock, rockfish, salmon, sand 
lance, etc.), bivalves, squid, octopus, and gastropods.

Potential Impacts on Prey Species

    With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to 
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson 
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the 
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially 
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the 
signal in relation to the natural background sound level.
    Fishes produce sounds that are associated with behaviors that 
include territoriality, mate search, courtship, and aggression. It has 
also been speculated that sound production may provide the means for 
long distance communication and communication under poor underwater 
visibility conditions (Zelick et al., 1999), although the fact that 
fish communicate at low-frequency 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 vibration-based 
information of their surroundings. The two sensory systems, the inner 
ear and the lateral line, constitute the acoustico-lateralis system.
    Although the hearing sensitivities of very few fish species have 
been studied to date, it is becoming obvious that the intra- and inter-
specific variability is considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell et al. 
(2004) compiled and published available fish audiogram information. A 
noninvasive electrophysiological recording method known as auditory 
brainstem response is now commonly used in the production of fish 
audiograms (Yan, 2004). Popper and Carlson (1998) and the Navy (2001) 
found that fish generally perceive underwater sounds in the frequency 
range of 50-2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz. Even though 
some fish are able to detect sounds in the ultrasonic frequency range, 
the thresholds at these higher frequencies tend to be considerably 
higher than those at the lower end of the auditory frequency range.
    Fish are sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds due to swim 
bladder resonance. As the pressure wave passes through a fish, the swim 
bladder is rapidly squeezed as the high pressure wave, and then the 
under pressure component of the wave, passes through the fish. The swim 
bladder may repeatedly expand and contract at the high sound pressure 
levels, creating pressure on the internal organs surrounding the swim 
bladder.
    Literature relating to the impacts of sound on marine fish species 
can be divided into the following categories: (1) Pathological effects; 
(2) physiological effects; and (3) behavioral effects. Pathological 
effects include lethal and sub-lethal physical damage to fish; 
physiological effects include primary and secondary stress responses; 
and behavioral effects include changes in exhibited behaviors of fish. 
Behavioral

[[Page 9523]]

changes might be a direct reaction to a detected sound or a result of 
the anthropogenic sound masking natural sounds that the fish normally 
detect and to which they respond. The three types of effects are often 
interrelated in complex ways. For example, some physiological and 
behavioral effects could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological 
effect of mortality. Hastings and Popper (2005) reviewed what is known 
about the effects of sound on fishes and identified studies needed to 
address areas of uncertainty relative to measurement of sound and the 
responses of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/2004) also published a paper 
that reviews the effects of anthropogenic sound on the behavior and 
physiology of fishes.
    The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior 
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to 
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the 
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold 
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition 
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of 
sound rather than a continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a 
quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity 
rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level.
    Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen 
et al., 1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) have shown that fish react 
when the sound from the engines and propeller exceeds a certain level. 
Avoidance reactions have been observed in fish such as cod and herring 
when vessels approached close enough that received sound levels are 110 
dB to 130 dB (Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and Godo, 1990; Ona and 
Toresen, 1988). However, other researchers have found that fish such as 
polar cod, herring, and capelin are often attracted to vessels 
(apparently by the noise) and swim toward the vessel (Rostad et al., 
2006). Typical sound source levels of vessel noise in the audible range 
for fish are 150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 1995).
    Carlson (1994), in a review of 40 years of studies concerning the 
use of underwater sound to deter salmonids from hazardous areas at 
hydroelectric dams and other facilities, concluded that salmonids were 
able to respond to low-frequency sound and to react to sound sources 
within a few feet of the source. He speculated that the reason that 
underwater sound had no effect on salmonids at distances greater than a 
few feet is because they react to water particle motion/acceleration, 
not sound pressures. Detectable particle motion is produced within very 
short distances of a sound source, although sound pressure waves travel 
farther.

Potential Impacts to the Benthic Environment

    Apache's seismic survey requires the deployment of a submersible 
recording system in the inter-tidal and marine zones. An autonomous 
``nodal'' (i.e., no cables) system would be placed on the seafloor by 
specific vessels in lines parallel to each other with a node line 
spacing of 402 m (0.25 mi). Each nodal ``patch'' would have six to 
eight node lines parallel to each other. The lines generally run 
perpendicular to the shoreline. An entire patch would be placed on the 
seafloor prior to airgun activity. As the patches are surveyed, the 
node lines would be moved either side to side or inline to the next 
location. Placement and retrieval of the nodes may cause temporary and 
localized increases in turbidity on the seafloor. The substrate of Cook 
Inlet consists of glacial silt, clay, cobbles, pebbles, and sand 
(Sharma and Burrell, 1970). Sediments like sand and cobble dissipate 
quickly when suspended, but finer materials like clay and silt can 
create thicker plumes that may harm fish; however, the turbidity 
created by placing and removing nodes on the seafloor would settle to 
background levels within minutes after the cessation of activity.
    In addition, seismic noise will radiate throughout the water column 
from airguns and pingers until it dissipates to background levels. No 
studies have demonstrated that seismic noise affects the life stages, 
condition, or amount of food resources (fish, invertebrates, eggs) used 
by marine mammals, except when exposed to sound levels within a few 
meters of the seismic source or in few very isolated cases. Where fish 
or invertebrates did respond to seismic noise, the effects were 
temporary and of short duration. Consequently, disturbance to fish 
species due to the activities associated with the seismic survey (i.e, 
placement and retrieval of nodes and noise from sound sources) would be 
short term and fish would be expected to return to their pre-
disturbance behavior once seismic survey activities cease.
    Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed activity is not 
expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
their populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under 
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible 
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

Mitigation Measures Proposed by Apache

    For the proposed mitigation measures, Apache listed the following 
protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey program in Cook 
Inlet.
1. Operation of Mitigation Airgun at Night
    Apache proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations. 
Nighttime operations would be initiated only if a ``mitigation airgun'' 
(typically the 10 in\3\) has been continuously operational from the 
time that PSO monitoring has ceased for the day. Seismic activity would 
not ramp up from an extended shut-down (i.e., when the airgun has been 
down with no activity for at least 10 minutes) during nighttime 
operations, and survey activities would be suspended until the 
following day. At night, the vessel captain and crew would maintain 
lookout for marine mammals and would order the airgun(s) to be shut 
down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the 
established exclusion zones.
2. Exclusion and Disturbance Zones
    Apache proposes to establish exclusion zones to avoid Level A 
harassment (``injury exclusion zone'') of all marine mammals and to 
avoid Level B harassment (``disturbance exclusion zone'') for groups of 
five or more killer whales or harbor porpoises detected within the 
designated zones. The injury exclusion zone will correspond to the area 
around the source within which received levels equal or exceed 180 dB 
re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] for 
pinnipeds and Apache will shut down or power down operations if any 
marine mammals are seen approaching or entering this zone (more detail 
below). The disturbance exclusion zone will correspond to the area 
around the source within which received levels equal or exceed 160 dB 
re 1 [micro]Pa [rms] and Apache will implement power down and/or 
shutdown measures, as appropriate, if

[[Page 9524]]

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. Ramp-up is used at the start 
of airgun operations, after a power- or shut-down, and after any period 
of greater than 10 minutes in duration without airgun operations (i.e., 
extended shutdown).
    A full ramp-up after a 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 ramp-up 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, 
ramp-up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside 
of the zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15-30 minutes: 
15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g. harbor porpoises, 
harbor seals, and Steller sea lions), or 30 minutes for large 
odontocetes (e.g., killer whales and beluga whales).
5. Speed or Course Alteration
    If a marine mammal is detected outside the Level A injury exclusion 
zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to 
enter that zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when 
practical and safe, be changed to also minimize the effect on the 
seismic program. This can be used in coordination with a power down 
procedure. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the 
seismic and support vessels will be closely monitored to ensure that 
the marine mammal does not approach within the applicable exclusion 
radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the exclusion radius, 
further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course 
alterations, power down, or shut down of the airgun(s).
6. Measures for Beluga Whales and Groups of Killer Whales and Harbor 
Porpoises
    The following additional protective measures for beluga whales and 
groups of five or more killer whales and harbor porpoises are proposed. 
Specifically, a 160-dB vessel monitoring zone would be established and 
monitored in Cook Inlet during all seismic surveys. If a beluga whale 
or groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are 
visually sighted approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, 
survey activity would not commence until the animals are no longer 
present within the 160-dB disturbance zone. Whenever beluga whales or 
groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are 
detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, the airguns 
may be powered down before the animal is within the 160-dB disturbance 
zone, as an alternative to a complete shutdown. If a power down is not 
sufficient, the sound source(s) shall be shut-down until the animals 
are no longer present within the 160-dB zone.

Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS

    In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by Apache, NMFS 
proposes implementation of the following mitigation measures.
    Apache must not operate airguns within 10 miles (16 km) of the mean 
higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the 
Little Susitna River) between April 15 and October 15. The purpose of 
this mitigation measure is to protect beluga whales in the designated 
critical habitat in this area that is important for beluga whale 
feeding and calving during the spring and fall months. The range of the 
setback required by NMFS was designated to protect this important 
habitat area and also to create an effective buffer where sound does 
not encroach on this habitat. This seasonal exclusion is proposed to be 
in effect from April 15-October 15. Activities can occur within this 
area from October 16-April 14.
    The mitigation airgun will be operated at approximately one shot 
per minute, only during daylight and when there is good visibility, and 
will not be operated for longer than 3 hours in duration. In cases when 
the next start-up after the turn is expected to be during lowlight or 
low visibility, use of the mitigation airgun may be initiated 30 
minutes before darkness or low visibility conditions occur and may be 
operated until the start of the next seismic acquisition line. The 
mitigation gun must still be operated at approximately one shot per 
minute.
    NMFS proposes that Apache must suspend seismic operations if a live 
marine mammal stranding is reported in Cook Inlet coincident to, or 
within 72 hours of, seismic survey activities involving the use of 
airguns (regardless of any suspected cause of the stranding). The 
shutdown must occur if the animal is within a distance two times that 
of the 160 dB isopleth of the largest airgun array configuration in 
use. This distance was chosen to create an additional buffer beyond the 
distance at which animals would typically be considered harassed, as 
animals involved in a live stranding event are likely compromised, with 
potentially increased susceptibility to stressors, and the goal is to 
decrease the likelihood that they are further disturbed or impacted by 
the seismic survey, regardless of what the original cause of the 
stranding event was. Shutdown procedures will remain in effect until 
NMFS determines and advises Apache that all live animals involved in 
the stranding have left the

[[Page 9525]]

area (either of their own volition or following herding by responders).
    Finally, NMFS proposes that if any marine mammal species are 
encountered, during seismic activities for which take is not 
authorized, that are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels 
(SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), then 
Apache must alter speed or course, power down or shut-down the sound 
source to avoid take of those species.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated Apache's proposed mitigation measures 
and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring 
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable 
adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and 
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included 
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received 
levels of seismic airguns, or other activities expected to result in 
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing harassment takes only).
    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to 
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to received 
levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the 
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals 
species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the 
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. 
Apache submitted information regarding marine mammal monitoring to be 
conducted during seismic operations as part of the proposed rule 
application. That information can be found in Sections 12 and 14 of the 
application. The monitoring measures may be modified or supplemented 
based on comments or new information received from the public during 
the public comment period.
    Monitoring measures proposed by the applicant or prescribed by NMFS 
should contribute to or accomplish one or more of the following top-
level goals:
    1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of 
marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence, 
abundance, distribution, and/or density of species.
    2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or 
context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the 
potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g. sound or visual 
stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: 
the action itself and its environment (e.g. sound source 
characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected 
species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated 
with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or 
behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal 
(e.g. age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding 
areas).
    3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine 
mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific 
stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where 
possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).
    4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual 
responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of 
stressors, may impact either: the long-term fitness and survival of an 
individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g., through effects 
on annual rates of recruitment or survival).
    5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects 
marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or 
acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term 
contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels 
and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).
    6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on 
marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic 
activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
    7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of 
mitigation and monitoring measures.
    8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals 
(through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within 
the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the 
mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.

Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities

    As noted earlier in this document, NMFS has issued three IHAs to 
Apache for this same proposed activity. No

[[Page 9526]]

seismic surveys were conducted under the IHA issued in February 2013 
(became effective March 1, 2013). Apache conducted seismic operations 
under the first IHA issued in April 2012. Below is a summary of the 
results from the monitoring conducted in accordance with the April 2012 
IHA.
    Marine mammal monitoring was conducted in central Cook Inlet 
between May 6 and September 30, 2012, which resulted in a total of 
6,912 hours of observations. Monitoring was conducted from the two 
seismic survey vessels, a mitigation/monitoring vessel, four land 
platforms, and an aerial platform (either a helicopter or small fixed 
wing aircraft). PSOs monitored from the seismic vessels, mitigation/
monitoring vessel, and land platforms during all daytime seismic 
operations. Aerial overflights were conducted 1-2 times daily over the 
survey area and surrounding coastline, including the major river 
mouths, to monitor for larger concentrations of marine mammals in and 
around the survey site. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) took place 
from the mitigation/monitoring vessel during all nighttime seismic 
survey operations and most daytime seismic survey operations. During 
the entire 2012 survey season, Apache's PAM equipment yielded only six 
confirmed marine mammal detections, one of which was a Cook Inlet 
beluga whale.
    Six identified species and three unidentified species of marine 
mammals were observed from the vessel, land, and aerial platforms 
between May 6 and September 30, 2012. The species observed included 
Cook Inlet beluga whales, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea 
lions, gray whales, and California sea lions. PSOs also observed 
unidentified species, including a large cetacean, pinniped, and marine 
mammal. The gray whale and California sea lion were not included in the 
2012 IHA, so mitigation measures were implemented for these species to 
prevent unauthorized takes. There were a total of 882 sightings and an 
estimated 5,232 individuals (the number of individuals is typically 
higher than the number of sightings because a single sighting may 
consist of multiple individuals). Harbor seals were the most frequently 
observed marine mammal at 563 sightings of approximately 3,471 
individuals, followed by beluga whales with 151 sightings of 
approximately 1,463 individuals, harbor porpoises with 137 sightings of 
approximately 190 individuals, and gray whales with 9 sightings of 9 
individuals. Steller sea lions were observed on three separate 
occasions (4 individuals), and two California sea lions were observed 
once. No killer whales were observed during seismic survey operations 
conducted under the 2012 IHA.
    A total of 88 exclusion zone clearing delays, 154 shutdowns, 7 
power downs, 23 shutdowns following a power down, and one speed and 
course alteration were implemented under the 2012 IHA. Exclusion zone 
clearing delays, shutdowns, and shutdowns following a power down 
occurred most frequently during harbor seal sightings (n=61, n=110, 
n=14, respectively), followed by harbor porpoise sightings (n=18, n=28, 
n=6, respectively), and then beluga whale sightings (n=5, n=6, n=3, 
respectively). Power downs occurred most frequently with harbor seal 
(n=3) and harbor porpoise (n=3) sightings. One speed and course 
alteration occurred in response to a beluga whale sighting.
    Based on the information from the 2012 monitoring report, NMFS has 
determined that Apache complied with the conditions of the 2012 IHA, 
and we conclude that these results support our original findings that 
the mitigation measures set forth in the 2012 Authorization effected 
the least practicable impact on the species or stocks.
    Although Apache did not conduct any seismic survey operations under 
the 2013 IHA, they still conducted marine mammal monitoring surveys 
between May and August 2013. During those aerial surveys, Apache 
detected a total of three marine mammal species: beluga whale; harbor 
porpoise; and harbor seal. A total of 718 individual belugas, three 
harbor porpoises, and 919 harbor seals were sighted. Of the 718 
observed belugas, 61 were calves. All of the calf sightings occurred in 
the Susitna Delta area, with the exception of a couple south of the 
Beluga River and a couple in Turnagain Arm. More than 60 percent of the 
beluga calf sightings occurred in June (n=39).

Proposed Monitoring Measures

1. Visual Vessel-Based Monitoring
    Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by 
experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities. 
PSOs would monitor the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals near 
the survey vessel during all daylight periods (nautical dawn to 
nautical dusk) during operation and during most daylight periods when 
airgun operations are not occurring. PSO duties would include watching 
for and identifying marine mammals, recording their numbers, distances, 
and reactions to the survey operations, and documenting ``take by 
harassment'' as defined by NMFS.
    A minimum number of six PSOs (two per source vessel and two per 
support vessel) would be required onboard the survey vessel to meet the 
following criteria: (1) 100 percent monitoring coverage during all 
periods of survey operations in daylight (nautical twilight-dawn 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 NMFS-approved field biologists. An 
experienced field crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the 
survey vessel. Apache currently plans to have PSOs aboard three 
vessels: the two source vessels (M/V Peregrine Falcon and M/V Arctic 
Wolf) and one support vessel (M/V Dreamcatcher). Two PSOs would be on 
the source vessels, and two PSOs would be on the support vessel to 
observe and implement the exclusion, power down, and shut down areas. 
When marine mammals are about to enter or are sighted within designated 
harassment and exclusion zones, airgun or pinger operations would be 
powered down (when applicable) or shut down immediately. The vessel-
based observers would watch for marine mammals during all periods when 
sound sources are in operation and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to 
the start of airgun or pinger operations after an extended shut down.
    Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers would 
be individuals with experience as observers during seismic surveys in 
Alaska or other areas in recent years.
    The observer(s) would watch for marine mammals from the best 
available vantage point on the source and support vessels, typically 
the flying bridge. The observer(s) would scan systematically with the 
unaided eye and 7x50 reticle binoculars. Laser range finders would be 
available to assist with estimating distance on the two source vessels. 
Personnel on the bridge would assist the observer(s) in watching for 
marine mammals.
    All observations would be recorded in a standardized format. Data 
would be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The 
accuracy of the data would be verified by computerized validity data 
checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checks of the 
database. These procedures would allow for initial summaries of the 
data to be prepared during and shortly after the completion of the 
field program, and would facilitate transfer of the data to 
statistical, geographical, or other

[[Page 9527]]

programs for future processing and achieving. When a mammal sighting is 
made, the following information about the sighting would be recorded:
     Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if 
determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, 
heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from the PSO, apparent 
reaction to activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, 
etc.), closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
     Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel (e.g., 
seismic airguns off, pingers on, etc.), sea state, ice cover, 
visibility, and sun glare; and
     The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the 
PSO location.
    The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water 
temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun 
glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation 
watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change 
in any of those variables.
2. Visual Shore-Based Monitoring
    In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, Apache proposes to utilize a 
shore-based station daily, to visually monitor for marine mammals. The 
location of the shore-based station would need to be sufficiently high 
to observe marine mammals; the PSOs would be equipped with pedestal 
mounted ``big eye'' (20x110) binoculars. The shore-based PSOs would 
scan the area prior to, during, and after the airgun operations and 
would be in contact with the 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.
3. Aerial-Based Monitoring
    When practicable, Apache proposes to utilize helicopter or fixed-
wing aircraft to conduct aerial surveys of the project area prior to 
the commencement of operations in order to identify locations of 
congregations of beluga whales. Apache proposes to conduct daily aerial 
surveys. Daily surveys will be scheduled to occur at least 30 minutes 
and no more than 120 minutes prior to any seismic-related activities 
(including but not limited to node laying/retrieval or airgun 
operations). Daily aerial surveys will also occur on days that there 
may be no seismic activities. Aerial surveys are proposed to occur 
along and parallel to the shoreline throughout the project area as well 
as the eastern and western shores of central and northern Cook Inlet.
    Weather and safety permitting, aerial surveys would fly at an 
altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal sighting, 
aircraft would attempt to maintain a radial distance of 457 m (1,500 
ft) from the marine mammal(s). Aircraft would avoid approaching marine 
mammals from head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the aircraft 
over the marine mammal(s). By following these operational requirements, 
aerial surveys are not expected to harass marine mammals (Richardson et 
al., 1995; Blackwell et al., 2002).
    Based on data collected from Apache during its survey operations 
conducted under the April 2012 and March 2014 IHAs, NMFS determined 
that the foregoing monitoring measures will allow Apache to identify 
animals nearing or entering the Level B disturbance exclusion zone with 
a reasonably high degree of accuracy.

Reporting Measures

    Immediate reports will be submitted to NMFS if 25 belugas are 
detected in the Level B disturbance exclusion zone to evaluate and make 
necessary adjustments to monitoring and mitigation. If the number of 
detected takes for any marine mammal species is met or exceeded, Apache 
will immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active 
sound sources (e.g., airguns and pingers) and notify NMFS.
1. Weekly Reports
    Apache would submit a weekly field report to NMFS Headquarters as 
well as the Alaska Regional Office, no later than close of business 
each Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic survey activities 
take place. The weekly field reports would summarize species detected 
(number, location, distance from seismic vessel, behavior), in-water 
activity occurring at the time of the sighting (discharge volume of 
array at time of sighting, seismic activity at time of sighting, visual 
plots of sightings, and number of power downs and shutdowns), 
behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine 
mammals exposed.
2. Monthly Reports
    Monthly reports will be submitted to NMFS for all months during 
which in-water 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 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (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 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
     A description of the implementation and effectiveness of 
the: (i) terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental 
Take Statement (ITS); and (ii) mitigation measures of the LOA. For the 
Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each 
Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and 
describe their effectiveness for minimizing the adverse effects of the 
action on ESA-listed marine mammals.
3. Annual Reports
    Apache would submit an annual report to NMFS's Permits and 
Conservation Division within 90 days after the end of every operating 
season but no later than 60 days before the expiration of each annual 
LOA during the five-year period. The annual report would include:
     Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals).
     Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare).
     Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of 
marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/
size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover.
     Analyses of the effects of survey operations.
     Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without

[[Page 9528]]

seismic survey activities (and other variables that could affect 
detectability), such as: (i) Initial sighting distances versus survey 
activity state; (ii) closest point of approach versus survey activity 
state; (iii) observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey 
activity state; (iv) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus 
survey activity state; (v) distribution around the source vessels 
versus survey activity state; and (vi) numbers of animals detected in 
the 160 dB harassment (disturbance exclusion) zone.
    NMFS would review the draft annual reports. Apache must then submit 
a final annual report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving 
comments from NMFS on the draft annual report. If NMFS decides that the 
draft annual report needs no comments, the draft report shall be 
considered to be the final report.
4. Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this 
Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury 
or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 
entanglement), Apache shall immediately cease the specified activities 
and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, her 
designees, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report 
must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Apache to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Apache may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
    In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
Apache would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
her designees, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline. The report must 
include the same information identified in the paragraph above. 
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 
incident. NMFS would work with Apache to determine whether 
modifications in the activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., 
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Apache shall report the incident 
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, her designees, the NMFS Alaska Stranding 
Hotline, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators within 24 hours 
of the discovery. Apache shall provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Activities may continue 
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral 
harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed seismic survey 
program with proposed mitigation. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals 
are associated with noise propagation from the sound sources (e.g., 
airguns and pingers) used in the seismic survey; no take is expected to 
result from the detonation of explosives onshore, as supported by the 
SSV study, from vessel strikes because of the slow speed of the vessels 
(2-4 knots), or from aircraft overflights, as surveys will be flown at 
a minimum altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) and at 457 m (1,500 ft) when 
marine mammals are detected.
    Apache requests authorization to take six marine mammal species by 
Level B harassment. These six marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet 
beluga whale; killer whale; harbor porpoise; gray whale; harbor seal; 
and Steller sea lion.
    For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the 
seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) isopleth to 
indicate the onset of Level B harassment. The current Level A (injury) 
harassment threshold is 180 dB (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB (rms) for 
pinnipeds. The NMFS annual aerial survey data provided in Table 5 of 
Apache's application was used to derive density estimates for each 
species (number of individuals/km\2\).

Applicable Zones for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''

    To estimate potential takes by Level B harassment for this proposed 
rule, as well as for mitigation radii to be implemented by PSOs, ranges 
to the 160 dB (rms) isopleths were estimated at three different water 
depths (5 m, 25 m, and 45 m) for nearshore surveys and at 80 m for 
channel surveys. The distances to this threshold for the nearshore 
survey locations are provided in Table 2 in Apache's application and 
correspond to the three transects modeled at each site in the onshore, 
nearshore, and parallel to shore directions. To estimate take by Level 
B harassment, Apache used the largest value from each category. The 
distances to the thresholds for the channel survey locations are 
provided in Table 4 in Apache's application and correspond to the 
broadside and endfire directions. The areas ensonified to the 160 dB 
isopleth for the nearshore survey are provided in Table 3 in Apache's 
application. The area ensonified to the 160 dB isopleth for the channel 
survey is 517 km\2\.
    Compared to the airguns, the relevant isopleths for the positioning 
pinger is quite small. The distances to the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) 
isopleths are 1 m, 3 m, and 25 m (3.3, 10, and 82 ft), respectively.

[[Page 9529]]

Estimates of Marine Mammal Density

    Apache used one method to estimate densities for Cook Inlet beluga 
whales and another method for the other marine mammals in the area 
expected to be taken by harassment. Both methods are described in this 
document.
1. Beluga Whale Density Estimates
    In consultation with staff from NMFS's National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory (NMML) during development of the second IHA in early 2013, 
Apache used a habitat-based model developed by Goetz et al. (2012a). 
Information from that model has once again been used to estimate 
densities of beluga whales in Cook Inlet and we consider it to be the 
best available information on beluga density. A summary of the model is 
provided here, and additional detail can be found in Goetz et al. 
(2012a). To develop NMML's estimated densities of belugas, Goetz et al. 
(2012a) developed a model based on aerial survey data, depth soundings, 
coastal substrate type, environmental sensitivity index, anthropogenic 
disturbance, and anadromous fish streams to predict beluga densities 
throughout Cook Inlet. The result of this work is a beluga density map 
of Cook Inlet, which easily sums the belugas predicted within a given 
geographic area. NMML developed its predictive habitat model from the 
distribution and group size of beluga whales observed between 1994 and 
2008. A 2-part ``hurdle'' model (a hurdle model in which there are two 
processes, one generating the zeroes and one generating the positive 
values) was applied to describe the physical and anthropogenic factors 
that influence (1) beluga presence (mixed model logistic regression) 
and (2) beluga count data (mixed model Poisson regression). Beluga 
presence was negatively associated with sources of anthropogenic 
disturbance and positively associated with fish availability and access 
to tidal flats and sandy substrates. Beluga group size was positively 
associated with tidal flats and proxies for seasonally available fish. 
Using this analysis, Goetz et al. (2012) produced habitat maps for 
beluga presence, group size, and the expected number of belugas in each 
1 km\2\ cell of Cook Inlet. The habitat-based model developed by NMML 
uses a Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS is a computer system 
capable of capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically 
referenced information; that is, data identified according to location. 
However, the Goetz et al. (2012) model does not incorporate seasonality 
into the density estimates. Rather, Apache factors in seasonal 
considerations of beluga density into the design of the survey 
tracklines and locations (as discussion in more detail later in this 
document) in addition to other factors such as weather, ice conditions, 
and seismic needs.
2. Non-beluga Whale Species Density Estimates
    Densities of other marine mammals in the proposed project area were 
estimated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS for Cook 
Inlet beluga whale between 2000 and 2012 in June (Rugh et al., 2000, 
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005b, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al., 2008, 2009, 
2010, 2012; Hobbs et al., 2011). These surveys were flown in June to 
collect abundance data of beluga whales, but sightings of other marine 
mammals were also reported. Although these data were only collected in 
one month each year, these surveys provide the best available 
relatively long term data set for sighting information in the proposed 
project area. The general trend in marine mammal sighting is that 
beluga whales and harbor seals are seen most frequently in upper Cook 
Inlet, with higher concentrations of harbor seals near haul out sites 
on Kalgin Island and of beluga whales near river mouths, particularly 
the Susitna River. The other marine mammals of interest for this rule 
(killer whales, gray whales, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions) are 
observed infrequently in upper Cook Inlet and more commonly in lower 
Cook Inlet. In addition, these densities are calculated based on a 
relatively large area that was surveyed, much larger than the proposed 
area for a given year of seismic data acquisition. Furthermore, these 
annual aerial surveys are conducted only in June (numbers from August 
surveys were not used because the area surveyed was not provided), so 
it does not account for seasonal variations in distribution or habitat 
use of each species.
    Table 5 in Apache's application provides a summary of the results 
of each annual NMFS aerial survey conducted in June from 2000 to 2012. 
The total number of individuals sighted for each survey by year is 
reported, as well as total hours for the entire survey and total area 
surveyed. To estimate density of marine mammals, total number of 
individuals (other species) observed for the entire survey area by year 
(surveys usually last several days) was divided by the approximate 
total area surveyed for each year (density = individuals/km\2\). 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Average density
                       Species                          (animals/km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale...........................................           5.33E-05
Harbor seal..........................................            0.24931
Harbor porpoise......................................           0.003895
Killer whale.........................................           0.000748
Steller sea lion.....................................           0.008281
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Takes by Harassment

1. Beluga Whales
    As a result of discussions with NMFS, Apache has used the NMML 
model (Goetz et al., 2012a) for the estimate of takes in this proposed 
rule. Apache has established two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2) and proposes 
to conduct seismic surveys within all, or part of these zones; to be 
determined as weather, ice, and priorities dictate.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    Figure 2: A map of Apache survey area divided into Zone 1 and Zone 
2

[[Page 9530]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23FE15.001

    Based on information using Goetz et al. model (2012a), Apache 
derived one density estimate for beluga whales in Upper Cook Inlet 
(i.e., north of the Forelands) and another density estimate for beluga 
whales in Lower Cook Inlet (i.e., south of the Forelands). The density 
estimate for Upper Cook Inlet is 0.0212 and is 0.0056 for Lower Cook 
Inlet. Apache's annual seismic operational area would be determined as 
weather, ice, and priorities dictate. Apache has requested a maximum 
allowed take for Cook Inlet beluga whales of 30 individuals. During 
each annual LOA (if issued), Apache would operate in a portion of the 
total seismic operation area of 5,684 km\2\ (2,195 mi\2\), such that 
when one multiplies the anticipated beluga whale density based on the 
seismic survey operational area times the area to be ensonified to the 
160-dB isopleth of 9.5 km (5.9 mi), estimated takes will not exceed 30 
beluga whales in a given year
    In order to estimate when that level is reached, Apache has 
developed a formula based on the total area of each seismic survey 
project zone (including the 160 dB buffer) and the average density of 
beluga whales for each zone.

[[Page 9531]]



      Table 3--Expected Beluga Whale Takes, Total Area of Zone, and Average Beluga Whale Density Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Expected Beluga
                                     takes from NMML     Total area of  zone
                                  model (including the   (km\2\)  (including      Average take density  (dx)
                                     160 dB buffer)      the  160 dB buffer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1..........................                    28                  1319  d1 = 0.0212
Zone 2..........................                    29                  5160  d2 = 0.0056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apache will limit surveying in the proposed seismic survey area 
(Zones 1 and 2 presented in Figure 2 of Apache's application) to ensure 
a maximum of 30 beluga takes during each open water season. In order to 
ensure that Apache does not exceed 30 beluga whale takes, Apache 
developed the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23FE15.002

    This formula also allows Apache to have flexibility to prioritize 
survey locations in response to local weather, ice, and operational 
constraints. Apache may choose to survey portions of a zone or a zone 
in its entirety, and the analysis in this proposed rule takes this into 
account. For the 2015 season, Apache is proposing to survey the same 
area that was authorized in 2014, which uses the same delineation of 
Zone 1 and Zone 2 as the previous IHA. Using this formula, if Apache 
surveys the entire area of Zone 1 (1,319 km\2\), then essentially none 
of Zone 2 will be surveyed because the input in the calculation denoted 
by d2A2 would essentially need to be zero to 
ensure that the total allotted proposed take of beluga whales is not 
exceeded. The use of this formula will ensure that Apache's proposed 
seismic program, including the 160 dB buffer, will not exceed 30 
calculated beluga takes.
    Apache proposes to initially limit actual survey areas, including 
160 dB buffer zones, to satisfy the formula denoted here. Operations 
are required to cease once Apache has conducted seismic data 
acquisition in an area where multiplying the applicable density by the 
total ensonified area out to the 160-dB isopleth equaled 30 beluga 
whales, using the equation provided above.
2. Other Marine Mammal Species
    The estimated number of other Cook Inlet marine mammals that may be 
potentially harassed during the seismic surveys was calculated by 
multiplying the average density estimates (presented in Table 2 in this 
document) by the area ensonified by levels >=160 dB re [micro]Pa rms 
(see Appendix C and Appendix D in Apache's application for more 
information).
    Apache anticipates that a crew will collect seismic data for 8-12 
hours per day over approximately 160 days over the course of 8 to 9 
months each year. It is assumed that over the course of these 160 days, 
100 days would be working in the offshore region and 60 days in the 
shallow, intermediate, and deep nearshore region. Of those 60 days in 
the nearshore region, 20 days would be in each depth. It is important 
to note that environmental conditions (such as ice, wind, fog) will 
play a significant role in the actual operating days; therefore, these 
estimates are conservative in order to provide a basis for probability 
of encountering these marine mammal species in the project area.
    NMFS calculated the number of potential exposure instances for each 
non-beluga species using the density information derived from NMFS 
aerial surveys conducted from 2000-2012. These animal densities were 
multiplied by the number of days in each water depth (shallow, 
intermediate, deep, or offshore) as well as the estimated ensonified 
area per day for each water depth. This method is likely an 
overestimation of take as it represents every possible instance of 
take, without allowing for repeated take of individuals, which is 
possible with resident species.
    The number of estimated takes by harassment was calculated using 
the total ensonified area of 7,096km \2\ for the proposed survey area. 
This area was multiplied by a contingency factor of 25% to account for 
any necessary repeats of tracklines.
    Total ensonified project area (7,096km \2\) + 25% of total area = 
8,870km \2\
    This total area was multiplied by the average density that was 
calculated for each species in the area (Table 2 in this document). As 
this estimation method does not account for any new animals transiting 
in and out of the project area, the calculated value was then 
multiplied by a turnover factor. The turnover factor is a value 
assigned by species that accounts for movement of new animals into the 
survey area. The assigned turnover estimates are based on estimates 
derived by Wood et al. 2012 in a density estimation for a 3D seismic 
survey environmental impact report. The turnover estimates range from 1 
to 2.5, with a turnover factor of 1 assigned to residential species and 
2.5 assigned to transitory species.
    Table 3 below outlines the calculation of encounter probabilities 
for non-beluga species and how they were calculated.

[[Page 9532]]



                                             Table 4--Encounter Probability of Non-Beluga Species per Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Ensonified
                                                              Density                                        area with                       Exposure
                         Species                             estimate        Exposure       Ensonified      contingency      Turnover        estimate
                                                           (individuals/     instances     area (km\2\)       factor          factor       (individuals)
                                                               km2)                                           (km\2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale..............................................        5.33E-05             4.6            7096            8870             2.5             1.2
Harbor seal.............................................         0.24931        21,435.7            7096            8870               1          2211.4
Harbor porpoise.........................................        0.003895           334.9            7096            8870               1            34.5
Killer whale............................................        0.000748            64.3            7096            8870            1.25             8.3
Steller sea lion........................................        0.008281           712.0            7096            8870               1            73.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Proposed Level B Harassment Takes

    Table 4 here outlines the density estimates used to estimate Level 
B harassment takes, the requested Level B harassment take levels, the 
abundance of each species in Cook Inlet, the percentage of each species 
or stock estimated to be taken, and current population trends.

   Table 5--Density Estimates, Proposed Level B Harassment Take Levels, Species or Stock Abundance, Percentage of Population Proposed To Be Taken, and
                                                                  Species Trend Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average
                                              density     Proposed level                                 Percentage of
                 Species                  (#individuals/      B take                Abundance             population                  Trend
                                              km\2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale............................  Upper = 0.0212              30  312.........................             9.6  Decreasing
                                          Lower = 0.0056
Harbor Seal.............................         0.24931           2,211  22,900......................             9.7  Stable
Harbor Porpoise.........................        0.003895              35  31,046......................            0.11  No reliable information
Killer Whale............................        0.000748               8  1,123 (resident)............            0.71  Resident stock possibly
                                                                          345 (transient).............            2.31   increasing
                                                                                                                        Transient stock stable
Steller Sea Lion........................        0.008281              73  79,300......................            0.09  Decreasing but with regional
                                                                                                                         variability (some stable or
                                                                                                                         increasing)
Gray Whale..............................        5.33E-05               1  19,126......................           0.005  Stable/increasing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table applies the proposed Level B harassment take 
levels from Table 4 and expands them to a 5 year timeline, spanning the 
entire duration of the proposed rule.

   Table 6--Proposed Level B Harassment Take Levels for 5 Year Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Project total  (5
              Species                Annual proposed     Year)  level B
                                       level B take           take
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale......................                 30                150
Harbor Seal.......................              2,211             11,055
Harbor Porpoise...................                 35                175
Killer Whale......................                  8                 40
Steller Sea Lion..................                 73                365
Gray Whale........................                  1                  5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level 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

[[Page 9533]]

mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Apache's proposed 
seismic survey in Cook Inlet, and none are proposed to be authorized. 
Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing 
impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects. 
The number of takes that are anticipated and proposed to be authorized 
are expected to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment. 
The seismic airguns do not operate continuously over a 24-hour period. 
Rather airguns are operational for a few hours at a time totaling about 
12 hours a day.
    Both Cook Inlet beluga whales and the western stock of Steller sea 
lions are listed as endangered under the ESA. Both stocks are also 
considered depleted under the MMPA. The estimated annual rate of 
decline for Cook Inlet beluga whales was 0.6 percent between 2002 and 
2012. Steller sea lion trends for the western stock are variable 
throughout the region with some decreasing and others remaining stable 
or even indicating slight increases. The other four species that may be 
taken by harassment during Apache's proposed seismic survey program are 
not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA nor as depleted 
under the MMPA.
    Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and 
harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually 
assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are 
those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing 
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. When in the 
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive 
to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10-20 km (6-12 mi) of 
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al., 2005). However, 
as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed to anthropogenic 
sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the results 
from the Beaufort Sea surveys do not directly relate to potential 
reactions of Cook Inlet beluga whales. Also, due to the dispersed 
distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during winter and the 
concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from late April 
through early fall, belugas would likely occur in small numbers in the 
majority of Apache's proposed survey area during the majority of 
Apache's annual operational timeframe of March through December. For 
the same reason, it is unlikely that animals would be exposed to 
received levels capable of causing injury.
    Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, 
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to 
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and 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 marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and 
other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary 
biological functions. In addition, NMFS proposes to seasonally restrict 
seismic survey operations in locations known to be important for beluga 
whale feeding, calving, or nursing. The primary location for these 
biological life functions occur in the Susitna Delta region of upper 
Cook Inlet. NMFS proposes to implement a 16 km (10 mi) seasonal 
exclusion from seismic survey operations in this region from April 15-
October 15. The highest concentrations of belugas are typically found 
in this area from early May through September each year. NMFS has 
incorporated a 2-week buffer on each end of this seasonal use timeframe 
to account for any anomalies in distribution and marine mammal usage.
    Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated 
marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, and shutdowns or power downs when 
marine mammals are seen within defined ranges designed both to avoid 
injury and disturbance will further reduce short-term reactions and 
minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects 
of the seismic survey are expected to be short-term, with no lasting 
biological consequence. Therefore, the exposure of cetaceans to sounds 
produced by Apache's proposed seismic survey operation is not 
anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival of the affected species or stocks.
    Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed 
seismic surveys more than once during the timeframe of the project. 
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects 
on pinnipeds are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a 
limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in 
behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment''. 
Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is 
surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity 
are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small portion 
of pinniped habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas 
within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions. 
In addition, the area where the survey will take place is not known to 
be an important location where pinnipeds haul out. The closest known 
haul-out site is located on Kalgin Island, which is about 22 km from 
the McArther River. More recently, some large congregations of harbor 
seals have been observed hauling out in upper Cook Inlet. However, 
mitigation measures and restrictions will be implemented to help reduce 
impacts to the animals. Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds 
produced by this phase of Apache's proposed seismic survey is not 
anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival on those species or stocks.
    The addition of nine vessels, and noise due to vessel operations 
associated with the seismic survey, would not be outside the present 
experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may 
increase locally. Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and 
the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the 
other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity and 
noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or 
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their 
populations.
    Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed 
previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat'' 
section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of 
marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to 
not affect annual rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in 
the area. Based on the size of Cook Inlet where feeding by marine 
mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey 
activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area 
would be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist 
elsewhere. Additionally, seismic survey operations will not occur in 
the primary beluga feeding and calving habitat during times of high use 
by those animals.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total annual 
marine mammal take from Apache's proposed seismic survey will have a 
negligible impact on

[[Page 9534]]

the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    The requested takes proposed to be authorized annually represent 
9.6 percent of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 
312 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2014), 0.71 percent of the Alaska 
resident stock and 2.31 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island 
and Bering Sea stock of killer whales (1,123 residents and 345 
transients), 0.11 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately 
31,046 harbor porpoises, and 0.005 percent of the eastern North Pacific 
stock of approximately 19,126 gray whales. The take requests presented 
for harbor seals represent 9.7 percent of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock 
of approximately 22,900 animals. The requested takes proposed for 
Steller sea lions represent 0.09 percent of the western stock of 
approximately 79,300 animals. These take estimates represent the 
percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B 
behavioral harassment.
    NMFS finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to result 
annually from the effects of the proposed activities, as proposed to be 
mitigated through this rulemaking and LOA process, will be limited to 
small numbers of the affected species or stock. In addition to the 
quantitative methods used to estimate take, NMFS also considered 
qualitative factors that further support the ``small numbers'' 
determination, including: (1) The seasonal distribution and habitat use 
patterns of Cook Inlet beluga whales, which suggest that for much of 
the time only a small portion of the population would be accessible to 
impacts from Apache's activity, as most animals are found in the 
Susitna Delta region of Upper Cook Inlet from early May through 
September; (2) other cetacean species and Steller sea lions are not 
common in the seismic survey area; (3) the proposed mitigation 
requirements, which provide 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 impacts and the amount of takes; and 
(5) monitoring results from previous activities that indicated low 
numbers of beluga whale sightings within the Level B disturbance 
exclusion zone and low levels of Level B harassment takes of other 
marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS determined that the numbers of animals 
likely to be taken is small.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

Relevant Subsistence Uses

    The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the 
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an 
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native 
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with 
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates 
Native traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to 
younger generations (NOAA, 2007).
    The Cook Inlet beluga whale has traditionally been hunted by Alaska 
Natives for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the 
1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary 
subsistence hunters of Cook Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s and 
1990s, Alaska Natives from villages in the western, northwestern, and 
North Slope regions of Alaska either moved to or visited the south 
central region and participated in the yearly subsistence harvest 
(Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per year 
(range 21-123) were taken in this harvest, including those successfully 
taken for food and those struck and lost. NMFS has concluded that this 
number is high enough to account for the estimated 14 percent annual 
decline in the population during this time (Hobbs et al., 2008). Actual 
mortality may have been higher, given the difficulty of estimating the 
number of whales struck and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a 
moratorium was enacted (Public Law 106-31) prohibiting the subsistence 
take of Cook Inlet beluga whales except through a cooperative agreement 
between NMFS and the affected Alaska Native organizations. Since the 
Cook Inlet beluga whale harvest was regulated in 1999 requiring 
cooperative agreements, five beluga whales have been struck and 
harvested. Those beluga whales were harvested in 2001 (one animal), 
2002 (one animal), 2003 (one animal), and 2005 (two animals). The 
Native Village of Tyonek agreed not to hunt or request a hunt in 2007, 
when no co-management agreement was to be signed (NMFS, 2008a).
    On October 15, 2008, NMFS published a final rule that established 
long-term harvest limits on the Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be 
taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That 
rule prohibits harvest for a 5-year period (2008-2012), if the average 
abundance for the Cook Inlet beluga whales from the prior five years 
(2003-2007) is below 350 whales. The next 5-year period that could 
allow for a harvest (2013-2017), would require the previous five-year 
average (2008-2012) to be above 350 whales. The 2008 Cook Inlet Beluga 
Whale Subsistence Harvest Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (NMFS, 2008a) authorizes how many beluga whales can be taken 
during a 5-year interval based on the 5-year population estimates and 
10-year measure of the population growth rate. Based on the 2008-2012 
5-year abundance estimates, no hunt occurred between 2008 and 2012 
(NMFS, 2008a). The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which managed the 
Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS, was disbanded by a 
unanimous vote of the Tribes' representatives on June 20, 2012. At this 
time, no harvest is expected in 2015 or, likely, in 2016. Residents of 
the Native Village of Tyonek are the primary subsistence users in the 
Knik Arm area.
    Data on the harvest of other marine mammals in Cook Inlet are 
lacking. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor 
seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine 
mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of 
Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest 
in Cook Inlet.
    There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in 
Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives 
who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of 
the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna River. Some data 
are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor seals, harbor 
porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine mammal stock 
assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of Alaska 
including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest in 
Cook Inlet. Some detailed information on the subsistence harvest of 
harbor seals is available from past studies conducted by the Alaska 
Department of Fish & Game (Wolfe et al., 2009). In 2008, 33 harbor 
seals were taken for harvest in the Upper Kenai-Cook 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).

[[Page 9535]]

Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) also requires NMFS to determine that the 
taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability 
of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. NMFS has 
defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 
resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the 
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to 
meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or 
avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or 
(iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the 
subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by 
other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow 
subsistence needs to be met.
    The primary concern is the disturbance of marine mammals through 
the introduction of anthropogenic sound into the marine environment 
during the proposed seismic survey. Marine mammals could be 
behaviorally harassed and either become more difficult to hunt or 
temporarily abandon traditional hunting grounds. However, the proposed 
seismic survey should not have any impacts to beluga harvests as none 
currently occur in Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence harvests of 
other marine mammal species are limited in Cook Inlet.

Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence 
Hunts

    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require LOA applicants for 
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of 
Cooperation or information that identifies what measures have been 
taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the 
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. NMFS 
regulations define Arctic waters as waters above 60[deg] N. latitude.
    Since November 2010, Apache has met and continues to meet with many 
of the villages and traditional councils throughout the Cook Inlet 
region. During these meetings, no concerns have been raised regarding 
potential conflict with subsistence harvest. Past meetings have been 
held with Alexander Creek, Knikatnu, Native Village of Tyonek, 
Salamatof, Tyonek Native Corporation, Ninilchik Traditional Council, 
Ninilchik Native Association, Village of Eklutna, Kenaitze Indian 
Tribe, and Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
    Additionally, Apache met with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council 
(CIMMC) to describe the project activities and discuss subsistence 
concerns. The meeting provided information on the time, location, and 
features of the proposed program, opportunities for involvement by 
local people, potential impacts to marine mammals, and mitigation 
measures to avoid impacts. Discussions regarding marine seismic 
operations continued with the CIMMC until its disbandment.
    In 2014, Apache held meetings or discussions regarding project 
activities with the following entities: Native Village of Tyonek, 
Tyonek Native Corporation, Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Ninilchik Native 
Association, Ninilchik Tribal Council, Salamatof Native Association, 
Cook Inlet Keeper, Alaska Salmon Alliance, Upper Cook Inlet Drift 
Association, and the Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association. Further, 
Apache has placed posters in local businesses, offices, and stores in 
nearby communities and published newspaper ads in the Peninsula 
Clarion.
    Apache has identified the following features that are intended to 
reduce impacts to subsistence users:
     In-water seismic activities will follow mitigation 
procedures to minimize effects on the behavior of marine mammals and, 
therefore, opportunities for harvest by Alaska Native communities; and
     Regional subsistence representatives may support recording 
marine mammal observations along with marine mammal biologists during 
the monitoring programs and will be provided with annual reports.
    Apache and NMFS recognize the importance of ensuring that ANOs and 
federally recognized tribes are informed, engaged, and involved during 
the permitting process and will continue to work with the ANOs and 
tribes to discuss operations and activities. On February 6, 2012, in 
response to requests for government-to-government consultations by the 
CIMMC and Native Village of Eklutna, NMFS met with representatives of 
these two groups and a representative from the Ninilchik. We engaged in 
a discussion about the proposed IHA for phase 1 of Apache's seismic 
program, the MMPA process for issuing an IHA, concerns regarding Cook 
Inlet beluga whales, and how to achieve greater coordination with NMFS 
on issues that impact tribal concerns. NMFS contacted the local Native 
Villages to inform them of our receipt of an application from Apache to 
promulgate regulations and issue subsequent annual LOAs in August 2014.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determination

    The project will not have any effect on beluga whale harvests 
because no beluga harvest will take place in 2015, nor is one likely to 
occur in the other years that would be covered by the 5-year 
regulations and associated LOAs. Additionally, the proposed seismic 
survey area is not an important native subsistence site for other 
subsistence species of marine mammals. Also, because of the relatively 
small proportion of marine mammals utilizing Cook Inlet, the number 
harvested is expected to be extremely low. Therefore, because the 
proposed program would result in only temporary disturbances, the 
seismic program would not impact the availability of these other marine 
mammal species for subsistence uses.
    The timing and location of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor 
seals may coincide with Apache's project, but because this subsistence 
hunt is conducted opportunistically and at such a low level (NMFS, 
2013c), Apache's program is not expected to have an impact on the 
subsistence use of harbor seals.
    NMFS anticipates that any effects from Apache's proposed seismic 
survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga 
whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be 
short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in 
behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the 
authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the 
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to 
meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or 
avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3) 
placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the 
subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other 
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow 
subsistence needs to be met. Based on the description of the specified 
activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the 
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the 
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 
subsistence uses from Apache's proposed activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the

[[Page 9536]]

ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area: 
The Cook Inlet beluga whale and the western DPS of Steller sea lion. In 
addition, the proposed action would occur within designated critical 
habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS's Permits and 
Conservation Division has initiated consultation with NMFS' Alaska 
Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the 
promulgation of 5-year regulations and the subsequent issuance of 
annual LOAs to Apache under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. This 
consultation will be concluded prior to issuing any final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 
issuance of regulations and associated LOAs to Apache for the proposed 
oil and gas exploration seismic survey program in Cook Inlet. The Draft 
EA has been made available for public comment concurrently with this 
proposed rule (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will either finalize the EA and 
prepare a FONSI or prepare an Environmental Impact Statement prior to 
issuance of the final rule (if issued).

Classification

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this 
proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Apache Alaska Corporation is the only entity that would be subject to 
the requirements in these proposed regulations. Apache Alaska 
Corporation is a part of Apache Corporation, which has operations and 
locations in the United States, Canada, Australia, Egypt, and the 
United Kingdom (North Sea), employs thousands of people worldwide, and 
has a market value in the billions of dollars. Therefore, Apache is not 
a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small 
business, as defined by the RFA. Because of this certification, a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been 
prepared.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to 
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. This proposed rule 
contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the 
provisions of the PRA. These requirements have been approved by OMB 
under control number 0648-0151 and include applications for 
regulations, subsequent LOAs, and reports. Send comments regarding any 
aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the 
burden, to NMFS and the OMB Desk Officer (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217

    Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, 
Transportation.

    Dated: February 9, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 217--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS 
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Subpart N is added to part 217 to read as follows:
Subpart N--Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Surveys in Cook 
Inlet, Alaska
Sec.
217.130 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
217.131 Effective dates.
217.132 Permissible methods of taking.
217.133 Prohibitions.
217.134 Mitigation requirements.
217.135 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
217.136 Letters of Authorization.
217.137 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

Subpart N--Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seismic Surveys in 
Cook Inlet, Alaska


Sec.  217.130  Specified activity and specified geographical region.

    (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to Apache Alaska 
Corporation (Apache) and those persons it authorizes to conduct 
activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs 
in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs 
incidental to oil and gas exploration seismic survey program 
operations.
    (b) The taking of marine mammals by Apache may be authorized in a 
Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within the intertidal 
transition zone and marine environment of Cook Inlet, Alaska.


Sec.  217.131  Effective dates.

    [Reserved]


Sec.  217.132  Permissible methods of taking.

    (a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 
Sec.  217.136, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter ``Apache'') may 
incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the 
area described in Sec.  217.130(b), provided the activity is in 
compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the 
regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
    (b) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activities 
identified in Sec.  217.130(a) is limited to the indicated number of 
takes on an annual basis of the following species and is limited to 
Level B harassment:
    (1) Cetaceans:
    (i) Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)--30;
    (ii) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)--35;
    (iii) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)--10;
    (iv) Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)--2;
    (2) Pinnipeds:
    (i) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)--2,211; and
    (ii) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)--75.


Sec.  217.133  Prohibitions.

    Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec.  217.130 and 
authorized by a LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 
Sec.  217.136, no person in connection with the activities described in 
Sec.  217.130 of this chapter may:
    (a) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec.  217.132(b);
    (b) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec.  217.132(b) other than 
by incidental Level B harassment;
    (c) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec.  217.132(b) if the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines such taking results 
in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such 
marine mammal;
    (d) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec.  217.132(b) if NMFS 
determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
species or stock

[[Page 9537]]

of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses; or
    (e) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and 
requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of 
this chapter and Sec.  217.136.


Sec.  217.134  Mitigation requirements.

    When conducting the activities identified in Sec.  217.130(a), the 
mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of 
this chapter and Sec.  217.136 must be implemented. These mitigation 
measures include but are not limited to:
    (a) General conditions: (1) If any marine mammal species not listed 
in Sec.  217.132(b) are observed during conduct of the activities 
identified in Sec.  217.130(a) and are likely to be exposed to sound 
pressure levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa 
(rms), Apache must avoid such exposure (e.g., by altering speed or 
course or by power down or shutdown of the sound source).
    (2) If the allowable number of takes on an annual basis listed for 
any marine mammal species in Sec.  217.132(b) is exceeded, or if any 
marine mammal species not listed in Sec.  217.132(b) is exposed to SPLs 
greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms), Apache shall 
immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active sound 
sources (e.g., airguns and pingers), record the observation, and notify 
NMFS Office of Protected Resources.
    (3) Apache must notify the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS at 
least 48 hours prior to the start of seismic survey activities each 
year.
    (4) Apache shall conduct briefings as necessary between vessel 
crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and other relevant personnel 
prior to the start of all survey activity, and when new personnel join 
the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication 
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational 
procedures.
    (b) Visual monitoring: (1) Apache shall establish zones 
corresponding to the area around the source within which SPLs are 
expected to equal or exceed relevant acoustic criteria. These zones 
shall be established as exclusion zones (shutdown zones) to avoid Level 
A harassment of any marine mammal, Level B harassment of beluga whales, 
or Level B harassment of aggregations of five or more killer whales or 
harbor porpoises. For all marine mammals other than beluga whales or 
aggregations of five or more harbor porpoises or killer whales, the 
Level B harassment zone shall be established as a disturbance zone and 
monitored as described in Sec.  217.135(a)(1). These zones shall be 
defined as follows:
    (i) For the full-power airgun array (2,400 in3), the Level B 
harassment zone (160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) shall be of 9,500 m 
radial distance, the Level A harassment zone for cetaceans (180 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa [rms]) shall be of 1,400 m radial distance; and the Level A 
harassment for pinnipeds (190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) shall be of 380 
m radial distance.
    (ii) For the shallow-water source (440 in3), the Level B harassment 
zone (160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) shall be of 2,500 m radial distance, 
the Level A harassment zone for cetaceans (180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) 
shall be of 310 m radial distance; and the Level A harassment for 
pinnipeds (190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) shall be of 100 m radial 
distance.
    (iii) For the mitigation gun (10 in3), the Level B harassment zone 
(160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) shall be of 280 m radial distance and a 
single Level A harassment zone of 10 m radial distance shall be 
established.
    (iv) During use of pingers, Apache shall establish a Level B 
harassment zone (160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) of 25 m radial distance.
    (2) Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals must be conducted 
before, during, and after all activity identified in Sec.  217.130(a) 
that is conducted during daylight hours (defined as nautical twilight-
dawn to nautical twilight-dusk), and shall begin not less than thirty 
minutes prior to the beginning of survey activity, continue throughout 
all survey activity that occurs during daylight hours, and conclude not 
less than thirty minutes following the cessation of survey activity. 
Apache shall use a sufficient number of qualified protected species 
observers (PSO) to ensure one hundred percent visual observation 
coverage during all periods of daylight survey operations with maximum 
limits of four consecutive hours on watch and twelve hours of watch 
time per day per PSO. One PSO must be a supervisory field crew leader. 
A minimum of two qualified PSOs shall be on watch at all times during 
daylight hours on each source and support vessel (except during brief 
meal and restroom breaks, when at least one PSO shall be on watch).
    (i) A qualified PSO is a third-party trained biologist, with prior 
experience as a PSO during seismic surveys and the following minimum 
qualifications:
    (A) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
    (B) Advanced education in biological science or related field 
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
    (C) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience);
    (D) Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    (E) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the survey 
operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
    (F) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when survey activities were conducted; dates 
and times when survey activities were suspended to avoid exposure of 
marine mammals to sound within defined exclusion zones; and marine 
mammal behavior; and
    (G) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary.
    (ii) PSOs must have access to binoculars (7 x 50 with reticle 
rangefinder; Fujinon or equivalent quality), laser rangefinder, and 
bigeye binoculars (25 x 150) and shall scan the surrounding waters from 
the best available suitable vantage point with the naked eye and 
binoculars. At least one PSO shall scan the surrounding waters during 
all daylight hours using bigeye binoculars.
    (iii) PSOs shall also conduct visual monitoring
    (A) While the airgun array and nodes are being deployed or 
recovered from the water and
    (B) During periods of good visibility when the sound sources are 
not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior.
    (iv) PSOs shall be on watch at all times during daylight hours when 
survey operations are being conducted, unless conditions (e.g., fog, 
rain, darkness) make observations impossible. The lead PSO on duty 
shall make this determination. If conditions deteriorate during 
daylight hours such that the sea surface observations are halted, 
visual observations must resume as soon as conditions permit.
    (3) Survey activity must begin during periods of good visibility, 
which is defined as daylight hours when weather (e.g., fog, rain) does 
not obscure the relevant exclusion zones within maximum line-of-sight. 
In order to begin survey activity, the relevant exclusion zones must be 
clear of marine mammals

[[Page 9538]]

for not less than thirty minutes. If marine mammals are present within 
or are observed approaching the relevant exclusion zone during this 
thirty-minute pre-clearance period, the start of survey activity shall 
be delayed until the animals are observed leaving the zone of their own 
volition and/or outside the zone or until fifteen minutes (for 
pinnipeds and harbor porpoises) or thirty minutes (for beluga whales, 
killer whales, and gray whales) have elapsed without observing the 
animal. While activities will be permitted to continue during low-
visibility conditions, they must have been initiated following proper 
clearance of the exclusion zone under acceptable observation conditions 
and must be restarted, if shut down for greater than ten minutes for 
any reason, using the appropriate exclusion zone clearance procedures.
    (c) Ramp-up and shutdown: (1) Survey activity involving the full-
power airgun array or shallow-water source must be initiated, following 
appropriate clearance of the exclusion zone, using accepted ramp-up 
procedures. Ramp-up is required at the start of survey activity and at 
any time following a shutdown of ten minutes or greater. Ramp-up shall 
be implemented by starting the smallest single gun available and 
increasing the operational array volume in a defined sequence such that 
the source level of the array shall increase in steps not exceeding 
approximately 6 dB per five-minute period. PSOs shall continue 
monitoring the relevant exclusion zones throughout the ramp-up process 
and, if marine mammals are observed within or approaching the zones, a 
power down or shutdown shall be implemented and ramp-up restarted 
following appropriate exclusion zone clearance procedures as described 
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (2) Apache must shut down or power down the source, as appropriate, 
immediately upon detection of any marine mammal approaching or within 
the relevant Level A exclusion zone or upon detection of any beluga 
whale or aggregation of five or more harbor porpoises or killer whales 
approaching or within the relevant Level B exclusion zone. Power down 
is defined as reduction of total airgun array volume from either the 
full-power airgun array (2,400 in3) or the shallow-water source (440 
in3) to a single mitigation gun (maximum 10 in3). Power down must be 
followed by shutdown in the event that the animal(s) approach the 
exclusion zones defined for the mitigation gun. Detection of any marine 
mammal within an exclusion zone shall be recorded and reported weekly, 
as described in Sec.  217.135(c)(2), to NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources.
    (i) When a requirement for power down or shutdown is triggered, the 
call for implementation shall be made by the lead PSO on duty and 
Apache shall comply. Any disagreement with a determination made by the 
lead PSO on duty shall be discussed after implementation of power down 
or shutdown, as appropriate.
    (ii) Following a power down or shutdown not exceeding ten minutes, 
Apache shall follow the ramp-up procedure described in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section to return to full-power operation.
    (iii) Following a shutdown exceeding ten minutes, Apache shall 
follow the exclusion zone clearance, described in paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section, and ramp-up procedures, described in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, before returning to full-power operation.
    (3) Survey operations may be conducted during low-visibility 
conditions (e.g., darkness, fog, rain) only when such activity was 
initiated following proper clearance of the exclusion zone under 
acceptable observation conditions, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section, and there has not been a shutdown exceeding ten minutes. 
Following a shutdown exceeding ten minutes during low-visibility 
conditions, survey operations must be suspended until the return of 
good visibility. During low-visibility conditions, vessel bridge crew 
must implement shutdown procedures if marine mammals are observed.
    (d) Additional mitigation: (1) The mitigation airgun must be 
operated at approximately one shot per minute, and use of the gun may 
not exceed three consecutive hours. Ramp-up may not be used to 
circumvent the three-hour limitation on mitigation gun usage. Usage of 
the mitigation gun shall be limited by when feasible, employing a turn 
protocol of complete shutdown followed by pre-clearance and ramp-up 
such that full power is reached prior to returning to trackline (rather 
than using the mitigation gun throughout the turn) and turning on 
mitigation gun at least thirty minutes prior to nautical-twilight dusk 
when nighttime ramp-up is anticipated.
    (2) Apache may alter speed or course during seismic operations if a 
marine mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears 
likely to enter the relevant exclusion zone and such alteration may 
result in the animal not entering the zone. If speed or course 
alteration is not safe or practicable, or if after alteration the 
marine mammal still appears likely to enter the zone, power down or 
shutdown must be implemented.
    (3) Apache shall not operate airguns within 16 km of the mean 
higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the 
Little Susitna River) between April 15 and October 15.
    (4) Apache must suspend survey operations if a live marine mammal 
stranding is reported within 19 km of the seismic source vessel 
coincident to or within 72 hours of survey activities involving the use 
of airguns, regardless of any suspected cause of the stranding. A live 
stranding event is defined as a marine mammal found on a beach or shore 
and unable to return to the water; on a beach or shore and able to 
return to the water but in apparent need of medical attention; or in 
the water but unable to return to its natural habitat under its own 
power or without assistance.
    (i) Apache must immediately implement a shutdown of the airgun 
array upon becoming aware of the live stranding event.
    (ii) Shutdown procedures shall remain in effect until NMFS 
determines that all live animals involved in the stranding have left 
the area (either of their own volition or following responder 
assistance).
    (iii) Within 48 hours of the notification of the live stranding 
event, Apache must inform NMFS where and when they were operating 
airguns and at what discharge volumes.
    (iv) Apache must appoint a contact who can be reached at any time 
for notification of live stranding events. Immediately upon 
notification of the live stranding event, this person must order the 
immediate shutdown of the survey operations.


Sec.  217.135  Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (a) Visual monitoring program: (1) Disturbance zones shall be 
established as described in Sec.  217.134(b)(1), and shall encompass 
the Level B harassment zones not defined as exclusion zones in Sec.  
217.134(b)(1). These zones shall be monitored to maximum line-of-sight 
distance from established vessel- and shore-based monitoring locations. 
If marine mammals other than beluga whales or aggregations of five or 
greater harbor porpoises or killer whales are observed within the 
disturbance zone, the observation shall be recorded and communicated as 
necessary to other PSOs responsible for implementing shutdown/power 
down requirements and any behaviors documented.
    (2) Apache shall utilize a shore-based station to visually monitor 
for marine mammals. The shore-based station must

[[Page 9539]]

be staffed by PSOs under the same minimum requirements described in 
Sec.  217.134(b)(2), must be located appropriately to monitor the area 
ensonified by that day's survey operations, must be of sufficient 
height to observe marine mammals within the ensonified area; and must 
be equipped with pedestal-mounted bigeye (25 x 150) binoculars. The 
shore-based PSOs shall scan the defined exclusion and disturbance zones 
prior to, during, and after survey operations, and shall be in contact 
with vessel-based PSOs via radio to communicate sightings of marine 
mammals approaching or within the defined zones.
    (3) When weather conditions allow for safety, Apache shall utilize 
helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft to conduct daily aerial surveys of 
the project area prior to the commencement of operations in order to 
identify locations of beluga whale aggregations (five or more whales) 
or cow-calf pairs. Daily surveys shall be scheduled to occur at least 
thirty but no more than 120 minutes prior to any seismic survey-related 
activities (including but not limited to node laying/retrieval or 
airgun operations) and shall also occur on days when there may be no 
survey activities. Aerial surveys shall occur along and parallel to the 
shoreline throughout the project area as well as the eastern and 
western shores of central and northern Cook Inlet in the vicinity of 
the survey area.
    (i) When weather conditions allow for safety, aerial surveys shall 
fly at an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). In the event of a marine mammal 
sighting, aircraft shall attempt to maintain a lateral distance of 457 
m (1,500 ft) from the animal(s). Aircraft shall avoid approaching 
marine mammals head-on, flying over or passing the shadow of the 
aircraft over the animal(s).
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (4) PSOs must use NMFS-approved data forms and shall record the 
following information when a marine mammal is observed:
    (i) Effort information, including vessel name; PSO name; survey 
type; date; time when survey (observing and activities) began and 
ended; vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey (observing and 
activities) began and ended; vessel heading and speed (knots).
    (ii) Environmental conditions while on visual survey, including 
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind force, 
swell height, weather conditions, ice cover (percent of surface, ice 
type, and distance to ice if applicable), cloud cover, sun glare, and 
overall visibility to the horizon (in distance).
    (iii) Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations 
during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions 
change (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions).
    (iv) Activity information, such as the number and volume of airguns 
operating in the array, tow depth of the array, and any other notes of 
significance (e.g., pre-ramp-up survey, ramp-up, power down, shutdown, 
testing, shooting, ramp-up completion, end of operations, nodes).
    (v) When a marine mammal is observed, the following information 
shall be recorded: Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, 
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform, aerial, land); PSO who 
sighted the animal; time of sighting; vessel location at time of 
sighting; water depth; direction of vessel's travel (compass 
direction); direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel 
(drawing is preferred); pace of the animal; estimated distance to the 
animal and its heading relative to vessel at initial sighting; 
identification of the animal (genus/species/sub-species, lowest 
possible taxonomic level, or unidentified; also note the composition of 
the group if there is a mix of species); estimated number of animals 
(high/low/best); estimated number of animals by cohort (when possible; 
adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.); 
description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each 
individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or 
markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow 
characteristics); detailed behavioral observations (e.g., number of 
blows, number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, 
traveling; as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed 
changes in behavior); animal's closest point of approach and/or closest 
distance from the center point of the airgun array; platform activity 
at time of sighting (e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, shooting, 
data acquisition, other).
    (vi) Description of any actions implemented in response to the 
sighting (e.g., delays, power down, shutdown, ramp-up, speed or course 
alteration); time and location of the action should also be recorded.
    (vii) If mitigation action was not implemented when required, 
description of circumstances.
    (viii) Description of all use of mitigation gun.
    (5) The data listed in Sec.  217.135(a)(4)(i-ii) shall also be 
recorded at the start and end of each watch and during a watch whenever 
there is a change in one or more of the variables.
    (b) Onshore seismic effort: (1) When conducting onshore seismic 
effort, in the event that a shot hole charge depth of 10 m is not 
consistently attainable due to loose sediments collapsing the bore 
hole, a sound source verification study must be conducted on the new 
land-based charge depths.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (c) Reporting:
    (1) Apache must immediately report to NMFS at such time as 25 total 
beluga whales (cumulative total during period of validity of LOA) have 
been detected within the 160-dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) exclusion zone, 
regardless of shutdown or power down procedures implemented, during 
seismic survey operations.
    (2) Apache must submit a weekly field report to NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources each Thursday during the weeks when in-water 
seismic survey activities take place. The weekly field reports shall 
summarize species detected (number, location, distance from seismic 
vessel, behavior), in-water activity occurring at the time of the 
sighting (discharge volume of array at time of sighting, seismic 
activity at time of sighting, visual plots of sightings, and number of 
power downs and shutdowns), behavioral reactions to in-water 
activities, and the number of marine mammals exposed to sound at or 
exceeding relevant thresholds.
    (3) Apache must submit a monthly report, no later than the 
fifteenth of each month, to NMFS Office of Protected Resources for all 
months during which in-water seismic survey activities occur. These 
reports must summarize the information described in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and shall also include:
    (i) An estimate of the number (by species) of:
    (A) Pinnipeds that have been exposed to sound (based on visual 
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and
    (B) Cetaceans that have been exposed to sound (based on visual 
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
    (ii) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the 
terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take 
Statement and mitigation measures of the LOA.

[[Page 9540]]

For the Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation 
of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation 
recommendations, and describe their effectiveness in minimizing the 
adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act-listed marine 
mammals.
    (4) Apache shall submit an annual report to NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources covering a given calendar year within ninety days 
of the last day of airgun operation or at least sixty days before the 
requested date of any subsequent LOA, whichever comes first. The annual 
report shall include summaries of the information described in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section and shall also include:
    (i) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals);
    (ii) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare);
    (iii) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
    (iv) Analyses of the effects of survey operations; and
    (v) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could 
affect detectability), such as:
    (A) Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state;
    (B) Closest point of approach versus survey activity state;
    (C) Observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey 
activity state;
    (D) Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey activity 
state;
    (E) Distribution around the source vessels versus survey activity 
state; and
    (F) Numbers of marine mammals (by species) detected in the 160, 
180, and 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) zones.
    (5) Apache shall submit a final annual report to the Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, within thirty days after receiving comments 
from NMFS on the draft report.
    (d) Notification of dead or injured marine mammals. (1) In the 
unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take 
of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such 
as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Apache 
shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the 
following information:
    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (ii) Description of the incident;
    (iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    (iv) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (vi) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (vii) Water depth;
    (viii) Fate of the animal(s); and
    (ix) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s). Activities 
shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the 
prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Apache to determine what measures 
are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and 
ensure MMPA compliance. Apache may not resume their activities until 
notified by NMFS.
    (2) In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition), Apache shall immediately report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the same 
information identified in Sec.  217.135(d)(1). If the observed marine 
mammal is dead, activities may continue while NMFS reviews the 
circumstances of the incident. If the observed marine mammal is 
injured, measures described in Sec.  217.134(d)(4) must be implemented. 
NMFS will work with Apache to determine whether additional mitigation 
measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
    (3) In the event that Apache discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the LOA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, scavenger damage), Apache shall report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. Apache 
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS. If the observed marine mammal is 
dead, activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of 
the incident. If the observed marine mammal is injured, measures 
described in Sec.  217.134(d)(4) must be implemented. In this case, 
NMFS will notify Apache when activities may resume.


Sec.  217.136  Letters of Authorization.

    (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these 
regulations, Apache must apply for and obtain a LOA.
    (b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a 
period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
    (c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these 
regulations, Apache may apply for and obtain a renewal of the Letter of 
Authorization.
    (d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to 
mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, Apache must 
apply for and obtain a modification of the Letter of Authorization as 
described in Sec.  217.137.
    (e) The LOA shall set forth:
    (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
    (2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., 
mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the 
species for subsistence uses; and
    (3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
    (f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the 
level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total 
taking allowable under these regulations.
    (g) Notice of issuance or denial of a LOA shall be published in the 
Federal Register within thirty days of a determination.


Sec.  217.137  Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

    (a) An LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  
217.136 for the activity identified in Sec.  217.130(a) shall be 
renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
    (1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as 
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes 
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in Sec.  
217.137(c)(1)), and
    (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were 
implemented.

[[Page 9541]]

    (b) For a LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant 
that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or 
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management 
provision in Sec.  217.137(c)(1)) that do not change the findings made 
for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the 
total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), 
NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, 
including the associated analysis of the change, and solicit public 
comment before issuing the LOA.
    (c) An LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  
217.136 for the activity identified in Sec.  217.130(a) may be modified 
by NMFS under the following circumstances:
    (1) Adaptive management--NMFS may modify (including augment) the 
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after 
consulting with Apache regarding the practicability of the 
modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more 
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring 
set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
    (i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision 
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:
    (A) Results from Apache's monitoring from the previous year(s).
    (B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or 
studies.
    (C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken 
in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or 
subsequent LOAs.
    (ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the 
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS 
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and 
solicit public comment.
    (2) Emergencies--If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that 
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of 
marine mammals specified in Sec.  217.132(b), an LOA may be modified 
without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be 
published in the Federal Register within thirty days of the action.
[FR Doc. 2015-03048 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P