Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 50989-51018 [2015-20605]
Download as PDF
Vol. 80
Friday,
No. 162
August 21, 2015
Part III
Department of Commerce
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet,
Alaska; Notice
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
50990
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE018
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Geophysical
and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet,
Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
NMFS is issuing an
Authorization in response to a request
from ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC
(EMALL) for an authorization to take
marine mammals, by harassment,
incidental to a geophysical and
geotechnical survey in Cook Inlet, AK,
for 84 days between August 14, 2015
and August 13, 2016.
DATES: Effective August 14, 2015,
through August 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
Incidental Harrassment Authorization
(IHA; Authorization), application, and
associated Environmental Assessment
(EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) may be obtained by
writing to Jolie Harrison, Division Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910, 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
notice may also be viewed, by
appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Young, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an
impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.’’
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B
harassment].
Summary of Request
On February 4, 2015, NMFS received
an application from EMALL for the
taking of marine mammals incidental to
a geotechnical and geophysical survey
in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS determined
that the application was adequate and
complete on June 8, 2015.
EMALL proposes to conduct a
geophysical and geotechnical survey in
Cook Inlet to investigate the technical
suitability of a pipeline study corridor
across Cook Inlet and potential marine
terminal locations near Nikiski. The
proposed activity would occur for 12
weeks during the 2015 open water
season after August 14, 2015. The
following specific aspects of the
proposed activities are likely to result in
the take of marine mammals: Use of a
seismic airgun, sub-bottom profiler
(chirp and boomer), and potentially a
vibracore. Take, by Level B Harassment
only, of individuals of four species of
marine mammals is anticipated to result
from the specified activities.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The planned geophysical surveys
involve remote sensors including single
beam echo sounder, multibeam echo
sounder, sub-bottom profiler (chirp and
boomer), 0.983 L (60 in3) airgun, side
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
scan sonar, geophysical resistivity
meters, and magnetometer to
characterize the bottom surface and
subsurface. The planned shallow
geotechnical investigations include
vibracoring, sediment grab sampling,
and piezo-cone penetration testing
(PCPT) to directly evaluate seabed
features and soil conditions.
Geotechnical borings are planned at
potential shoreline crossings and in the
terminal boring subarea within the
Marine Terminal survey area, and will
be used to collect information on the
mechanical properties of in-situ soils to
support feasibility studies for
construction crossing techniques and
decisions on siting and design of
pilings, dolphins, and other marine
structures. Geophysical resistivity
imaging will be conducted at the
potential shoreline crossings. Shear
wave velocity profiles (downhole
geophysics) will be conducted within
some of the boreholes. Further details of
the planned operations are provided
below.
Dates and Duration
Geophysical and geotechnical (G&G)
surveys that do not involve equipment
that could acoustically harass listed
marine mammals began in May 2015.
These surveys include echo sounders
and side scan sonar surveys operating at
frequencies above the hearing range of
local marine mammals and geotechnical
borings, which are not expected to
produce underwater noise exceeding
ambient. The remaining surveys,
including use of sub-bottom profilers
and the small airgun, will begin soon
after receipt of the IHA. These activities
would be scheduled in such a manner
as to minimize potential effects to
marine mammals, subsistence activities,
and other users of Cook Inlet waters. It
is expected that approximately 12 weeks
(84 work days) are required to complete
the G&G Program. The work days would
not all be consecutive due to weather,
rest days, and any timing restrictions.
Specified Geographic Region
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program
will include geophysical surveys,
shallow geotechnical investigations, and
geotechnical borings. Two separate
areas will be investigated and are shown
in Figure 1 of the application: The
pipeline survey area and the Marine
Terminal survey area (which includes
an LNG carrier approach zone). The
pipeline survey area runs from the
Kenai Peninsula, across the Inlet, up to
Beluga, also considered the Upper Inlet.
The Terminal area will include an area
west and south of Nikiski, the northern
edge of what is considered the Lower
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
Inlet. The G&G Program survey areas
(also referred to as the action area or
action areas) are larger than the
proposed pipeline route and the Marine
Terminal site to ensure detection of all
potential hazards, or to identify areas
free of hazards. This provides siting
flexibility should the pipeline corridor
or Marine Terminal sites need to be
adjusted to avoid existing hazards.
• Pipeline Survey Area—The
proposed pipeline survey area (Figure 1)
crosses Cook Inlet from Boulder Point
on the Kenai Peninsula across to Shorty
Creek about halfway between the village
of Tyonek and the Beluga River. This
survey area is approximately 45 km (28
mi) in length along the corridor
centerline and averages about 13 km (8
mi) wide. The total survey area is 541
km2 (209 mi2). The pipeline survey area
includes a subarea where vibracores
will be conducted in addition to the
geophysical surveys and shallow
geotechnical investigations.
• Marine Terminal Survey Area—The
proposed Marine Terminal survey area
(Figure 1), encompassing 371 km2 (143
mi2), is located near Nikiski where
potential sites and vessel routes for the
Marine Terminal are being investigated.
The Marine Terminal survey area
includes two subareas: A seismic survey
subarea where the airgun will be
operated in addition to the other
geophysical equipment, and a terminal
boring subarea where geotechnical
boreholes will be drilled in addition to
the geophysical survey and shallow
geotechnical investigations. The seismic
survey subarea encompasses 25 km2
(8.5 mi2) and the terminal boring
subarea encompasses 12 km2 (4.6 mi2).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Detailed Description of Activities
The Notice of Proposed IHA (80 FR
37465, June 30, 2015) contains a full
detailed description of the geotechnical
and geophysical survey, including the
sources proposed to be used and vessel
details. That information has not
changed and is therefore not repeated
here.
Comments and Responses
A Notice of Proposed IHA was
published in the Federal Register on
June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37465) for public
comment. During the 30-day public
comment period, NMFS received four
comment letters from the following: The
Marine Mammal Commission (MMC);
the Natural Resource Defense Counsel
(NRDC); Friends of Animals (FOA); and
one private citizen.
All of the public comment letters
received on the Notice of Proposed IHA
(80 FR 37465, June 30, 2015) are
available on the internet at: https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm. Following is a summary
of the public comments and NMFS’
responses.
Comment 1: One private citizen
requested that we deny issuance of the
IHA because marine mammals would be
killed as a result of the survey.
Response: The survey is not expected
to result in the death of any marine
mammal species, and no such take is
authorized. Extensive analysis of the
proposed geotechnical and geophysical
survey was conducted in accordance
with the MMPA, Endangered Species
Act (ESA), and National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to those
statutes, we analyzed the impacts of the
survey activities to marine mammals
(including those listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA), their
habitat (including critical habitat
designated under the ESA), and to the
availability of marine mammals for
taking for subsistence uses. The MMPA
analysis revealed that the activities
would have a negligible impact on
affected marine mammal species or
stocks and would not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of marine mammals for
taking for subsistence uses. The ESA
analysis concluded that the activities
likely would not jeopardize the
continued existence of ESA-listed
species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. The NEPA
analysis concluded that there would not
be a significant impact on the human
environment.
Comment 2: The MMC and the NRDC
recommend that NMFS defer issuance
of any Authorization to EMALL or other
applicants until NMFS concludes that
those activities would affect no more
than a small number of Cook Inlet
beluga whales with a negligible impact
on the population.
Response: In accordance with our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
216.104(c), we use the best available
scientific information to determine
whether the taking by the specified
activity within the specified geographic
region will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stock for
subsistence uses. Based on the best
scientific information available, NMFS
determined that the impacts of the
geotechnical and geophysical survey
program, which are primarily acoustic
in nature, would meet these standards.
Moreover, EMALL proposed and NMFS
has required in the IHA a rigorous
mitigation plan to reduce impacts to
Cook Inlet beluga whales and other
marine mammals to the lowest level
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
50991
practicable, including measures to
shutdown active acoustic sources if any
beluga whale is observed approaching
or within the Level B harassment zone
and restricting activities within a 10 mi
(16 km) radius of the Susitna Delta from
April 15 through October 15, which is
an important area for beluga feeding and
calving in the spring and summer
months. This shutdown measure is
more restrictive than the standard
shutdown measures typically applied,
and combined with the Susitna Delta
exclusion (minimizing adverse effects to
foraging), is expected to reduce both the
scope and severity of potential
harassment takes, minimizing impacts
from the harassment that would
adversely affect reproductive rates or
survivorship.
Our analysis indicates that issuance of
this IHA will not contribute to or
worsen the observed decline of the Cook
Inlet beluga whale population.
Additionally, the ESA Biological
Opinion determined that the issuance of
an IHA is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Cook Inlet
beluga whales or adversely modify Cook
Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. The
Biological Opinion also outlined Terms
and Conditions and Reasonable and
Prudent Measures to reduce impacts,
which have been incorporated into the
IHA. Therefore, based on the analysis of
potential effects, the parameters of the
survey, and the rigorous mitigation and
monitoring program, NMFS determined
that the activity would have a negligible
impact on the population.
Moreover, the survey would take by
Level B harrassment only small
numbers of marine mammals relative to
their population sizes. As described in
the proposed IHA Federal Register
notice, NMFS used a method that
incorporates density of marine
mammals overlaid with the anticipated
ensonified area and the number of days
of the operation to calculate an
estimated number of takes for belugas.
The number of belugas likely to be taken
represents 7.04% of the population,
which NMFS considers small. In
addition to this quantitative evaluation,
NMFS has 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 EMALL’s activity, as most
animals are concentrated in upper Cook
Inlet; and (2) the mitigation
requirements, which provide spatiotemporal limitations that avoid impacts
to large numbers of animals feeding and
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50992
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
calving in the Susitna Delta and limit
exposures to sound levels associated
with Level B harassment. Based on all
of this information, NMFS determined
that the number of beluga whales likely
to be taken is small. See response to
Comment 3 and our small numbers
analysis later in this document for more
information about the small numbers
determination for beluga whales and the
other marine mammal species.
Comment 3: The MMC recommends
that before issuing any Authorizations,
NMFS develop clear criteria for
determining what constitutes small
numbers and negligible impact for the
purpose of authorizing incidental take
of marine mammals.
Response: NMFS consistently assesses
clearly articulated factors in making
both the small numbers and negligible
impact findings in our actions, and
those findings are supported for this
action as described in this notice.
However, we are currently assessing our
criteria for determining what constitutes
‘‘small numbers’’ and are working
towards the development of an
improved, and more quantitative,
analytical framework for determining
whether an activity will have a
‘‘negligible impact’’ for the purpose of
authorizing takes of marine mammals.
We fully intend to engage the MMC in
these processes at the appropriate time.
Comment 4: The MMC and NRDC
recommend that NMFS finalize and
implement the beluga whale recovery
plan, issue its programmatic EIS, and
establish annual limits on the types of
takes authorized for sound-producing
activities in Cook Inlet before issuing
additional Authorizations.
Response: NMFS recognizes the
release of the draft recovery plan and, as
an agency, will address and implement
appropriate recommendations made in
the recovery plan when the draft
becomes a Final Recovery Plan, after
NMFS has been able to incorporate
public comment on the draft version.
Further, NMFS is making progress
toward the development of the Cook
Inlet EIS to analyze the environmental
impacts of issuing Incidental Take
Authorizations (ITAs) pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) for the taking of marine
mammals incidental to anthropogenic
activities in the waters of Cook Inlet,
AK, but in the meanwhile is also
requesting that all Cook Inlet applicants
requesting authorizations for the 2016
open water season send in their
applications by October 1, 2015. This
will enable NMFS to conduct a
Programmatic EA for these activities
and better analyze the cumulative
effects from all of the authorizations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
proposed for each open water season
until the EIS is complete.
Comment 5: The MMC, NRDC, and
FOA commented on an error in beluga
density information used to estimate the
number of beluga exposures in the
proposed authorization. The MMC and
NRDC recommend that NMFS provide
public notice of the revised number of
beluga whale takes that NMFS proposes
to authorize along with a revised
analysis.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
error in beluga density information and
has revised the calculations used for
take estimation presented in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA.
The correction results in a revised
exposure estimate of 30 belugas.
However, following discussions with
the applicant, the MMC, and the Alaska
Regional Office, NMFS has determined
that exposures due to the chirp will not
be included in the Authorization, as the
chirp and the boomer will be operating
concurrently and the 160-dB isopleth of
the boomer is larger than that of the
chirp. Therefore, NMFS is authorizing
take by Level B harrassment of only 24
belugas. This new exposure estimate
represents 7.06% of the population,
whereas the original estimate of 14
represented 4.12% of the population.
This difference does not substantively
affect NMFS’ analysis of effects, nor
does it change the small numbers or
negligible impact determinations, and
therefore it does not merit a second
public comment period.
Comment 6: The MMC and NRDC
recommend that until behavior
thresholds are updated, that NMFS
require applicants to use the 120-dB
rather than 160-dB threshold for subbottom profilers.
Response: The 120-dB threshold is
typically associated with continuous
sources. Continuous sounds are those
whose sound pressure level remains
above that of the ambient sound, with
negligibly small fluctuations in level
(NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005). Intermittent
sounds are defined as sounds with
interrupted levels of low or no sound
(NIOSH, 1998). Sub-bottom profiler
signals are intermittent sounds.
Intermittent sounds can further be
defined as either impulsive or nonimpulsive. Impulsive sounds have been
defined as sounds which are typically
transient, brief (<1 sec), broadband, and
consist of a high peak pressure with
rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI,
1986; NIOSH, 1998). Non-impulsive
sounds typically have more gradual rise
times and longer decays (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Sub-bottom profiler
signals have durations that are typically
very brief (<1 sec), with temporal
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
characteristics that more closely
resemble those of impulsive sounds
than non-impulsive sounds. With regard
to behavioral thresholds, we therefore
consider the temporal and spectral
characteristics of sub-bottom profiler
signals to more closely resemble those
of an impulse sound rather than a
continuous sound. The 160-dB
threshold is typically associated with
impulsive sources.
The MMC suggests that, for certain
sources considered here, the interval
between pulses is so small it should be
considered continuous. However, a subbottom profiler chirp’s ‘‘rapid staccato’’
of pulse trains is emitted in a similar
fashion as odontocete echolocation click
trains. Research indicates that marine
mammals, in general, have extremely
fine auditory temporal resolution and
can detect each signal separately (e.g.,
Au et al., 1988; Dolphin et al., 1995;
Supin and Popov, 1995; Mooney et al.,
2009), especially for species with
echolocation capabilities. Therefore, it
is highly unlikely that marine mammals
would perceive sub-bottom profiler
signals as being continuous.
In conclusion, sub-bottom profiler
signals are intermittent rather than
continuous signals, and the fine
temporal resolution of the marine
mammal auditory system allows them to
perceive these sounds as such. Further,
the physical characteristics of these
signals indicate a greater similarity to
the way that intermittent, impulsive
sounds are received. Therefore, the 160dB threshold (typically associated with
impulsive sources) is more appropriate
than the 120-dB threshold (typically
associated with continuous sources) for
estimating takes by behavioral
harassment incidental to use of such
sources.
We agree with the MMC’c
recommendation to revise existing
acoustic criteria and thresholds as
necessary to specify threshold levels
that would be more appropriate for a
wider range of sound sources, and are
currently in the process of producing
such revisions. In particular, NMFS
recognizes the importance of context
(e.g., behavioral state of the animals,
distance) in behavioral responses. The
current behavioral categorization (i.e.,
impulse vs. continuous) does not
account for context and is not
appropriate for all sound sources. Thus,
updated NOAA Acoustic Guidance
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/
guidelines.htm), once completed, will
more appropriately categorize
behavioral harassment criteria by
activity type. NOAA recognizes, as new
science becomes available, that our
current categorizations (i.e., impulse vs.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
continuous) may not fully encompass
the complexity associated with
behavioral responses (i.e., context, etc.)
and are working toward addressing
these issues in future acoustic guidance.
However, in the meanwhile, while our
current behavioral acoustic thresholds
may not fully account for some of the
differences observed across taxa and
contexts, they still serve as somewhat
conservative generalized indicators of
received levels at which we anticipate
behavioral harassment, and are not
undermined by newer information.
Comment 7: The MMC and NRDC
recommend that prior to issuance of the
Final Authorization, NMFS include
taking by Level B harassment of
humpback whales, gray whales, minke
whales, Dall’s porpoise, and Steller sea
lion.
Response: The issuance of an
Authorization to an applicant is a
request-based process. On the one hand,
if NMFS believes that marine mammals
will be taken that are not identified by
the applicant, we will work with the
applicant to modify the request to
ensure inclusion of affected species. On
the other hand, applicants sometimes
request take of a small number of
species that NMFS believes are unlikely
to be encountered but NMFS will
authorize take of those species as long
as the necessary findings can be made.
NMFS acknowledges that it has
authorized the take of the species
identified by commenters that occur
infrequently in Cook Inlet in other
Authorizations. However, in those
instances, the applicant requested take
of those species and NMFS analyzed the
requests submitted. EMALL believes,
and NMFS concurs, that with the
required monitoring, small zones of
influence, and short operating period (as
compared to previous activities
authorized in Cook Inlet), the activities
are unlikely to result in the take any of
the species identified by the
commenters. Moreover, if a species for
which take is not authorized is
encountered, the Authorization text
states that the applicant must shut down
active sound sources.
Comment 8: The MMC recommends
that NMFS require EMALL to monitor
for marine mammals for 30 minutes
after authorized activities have ceased.
Response: NMFS agrees with the
MMC and has added a post-activity
monitoring period of 30 minutes as a
requirement for this activity. A 30minute monitoring period after the
cessation of authorized sound source
operations can provide useful
observations to compare the behavior
and abundance of animals during
different scenarios of various noise
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
levels. This change has been noted in
the Authorization text.
Comment 9: The MMC and NRDC
recommend that NMFS allow sufficient
time between the close of the comment
period and issuance of an Authorization
for NMFS to analyze, consider, and
respond fully to comments received and
incorporate changes as appropriate.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
the time between the close of public
comment and the target date for issuing
the Authorization is short. However,
NMFS fully considered and responded
to all comments before issuing the
Authorization, and incorporated
changes as appropriate (i.e., see
response to Comment 8).
Comment 10: The NRDC and FOA
comment that NEPA mandates that
NMFS may not authorize activities
while a programmatic EIS is underway.
The NRDC references 40 CFR 1506.1.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that it
is preparing an EIS for incidental take
authorizations in Cook Inlet, AK (79 FR
61616; October 14, 2014). However,
NMFS is undertaking this
environmental analysis voluntarily as a
decision support tool for processing
MMPA ITA requests in Cook Inlet. The
programmatic EIS is meant to address
anticipated future levels of activity in
Cook Inlet, which may include increases
in activity, not a specific proposed
program or project. NMFS will continue
to prepare EAs or EISs, as appropriate,
for specific individual applications for
Incidental Take Authorizations (ITA) at
this time. Consistent with its obligations
under NEPA, NMFS prepared an EA
(including an analysis of cumulative
effects) prior to issuing the
Authorization to EMALL and
determined that issuance of the
Authorization would not significantly
impact the quality of the human
environment.
Comment 11: The NRDC commented
that NMFS should not issue an
Authorization until it has completed its
revision of acoustic thresholds for take
by Level B harrassment.
Response: NMFS notes that NRDC’s
comment that NMFS uses an outdated
and incorrect threshold for behavioral
takes does not include any specific
recommendations. NMFS uses 160 dB
(rms) as the exposure level for
estimating take by Level B harassment
for most species in most cases. This
threshold was established for
underwater impulse sound sources
based on measured avoidance responses
observed in whales in the wild.
Specifically, the 160 dB threshold was
derived from data for mother-calf pairs
of migrating gray whales (Malme et al.,
1983, 1984) and bowhead whales
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
50993
(Richardson et al., 1985, 1986)
responding to seismic airguns (e.g.,
impulsive sound source). There is more
recent information bearing on
behavioral reactions to seismic airguns,
but while those data illustrate how
complex and context-dependent the
relationship is between the two, they do
not clearly suggest that there is a more
appropriate level than 160dB to serve as
general behavioral harassment threshold
for multiple taxa. See 75 FR 49710,
49716 (August 13, 2010) (IHA for Shell
seismic survey in Alaska). Further, it is
not a matter of merely replacing the
existing threshold with a new one.
NOAA is working to develop more
sophisticated draft guidance for
determining impacts from acoustic
sources, including information for
determining Level B harassment
thresholds. Due to the complexity of the
task, any guidance will require a
rigorous review that includes internal
agency review, public notice and
comment, and additional external peer
review before any final product is
published. In the meantime, and taking
into consideration the facts and
available science, NMFS determined it
is reasonable to use the 160 dB
threshold for estimating takes of marine
mammals in Cook Inlet by Level B
harassment. However, we discuss the
science on this issue qualitatively in our
analysis of potential effects to marine
mammals.
Comment 12: The NRDC comments
that NMFS should require the use of
alternative technologies, including
quieting technologies, as well as
adopting additional time-area closures.
Response: NMFS responds to this
comment as part of the response to
Comment 14 below.
Comment 13: The NRDC comments
that the suggestion that Cook Inlet
belugas are habituated to certain levels
of anthropogenic activity is outdated,
given a study by Kendall et al. (2014) on
impacts to belugas from construction
noise.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
there are scientific records of belugas
responding to anthropogenic noise, as
evidenced in Kendall et al. (2014).
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 depends 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.,
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50994
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and
changes in dive, surfacing, and
respiration patterns.
A study by Lessage et al. (1999) of
belugas in the St. Lawrence River states
with respect to modification of vocal
behavior that ‘‘Owing to the gregarious
nature of belugas, this would not pose
a serious problem for intraherd
communication, given the relatively
short distances between herd members;
a source of noise would have to be very
close to them to potentially limit any
communication within a herd. However,
communication is probably not limited
to herd members, since inter-herd
communication may be important
during the breeding season, when
locating food sources, when navigating
in ice, or when reacting to large-scale
disturbance. On these larger scales, high
noise levels could impair
communication.’’ NMFS acknowledges
the potential for masking from the
sound sources proposed by EMALL and
discusses the potential effects of this.
The concerns raised by NRDC in the
paper by Bejder et al. (2009), that
animals that do not display overt
behavioral reactions could be incurring
harm, is an important component of
understanding the effects of tolerance
on mammals in areas of increasing
anthropogenic activity but no
mechanism to estimate the
physiological effects from tolerance are
currently viable for this analysis. As
noted above, though, even though
shutdown measures are in place that
will minimize behavioral harassment of
belugas, NMFS does not reduce the
amount of take expected/authorized due
to possible habitation of belugas in Cook
Inlet to anthropogenic noise, and the
negligible impact determination below
does not rely on an assumption of
habitation to make the necessary
findings.
Comment 14: The NRDC comments
that NMFS is failing to meet the
requirement of setting forth
‘‘permissible methods of taking
pursuant to such activity, and other
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on such species or stock
and its habitat’’ and urges NMFS to
adopt meaningful mitigation and
monitoring measures including
requiring applicants to contribute to a
comprehensive monitoring plan to
better understand distribution as well as
individual and cumulative effects of
human activities on Cook Inlet belugas,
which was incorporated by reference to
NRDC’s public comment on the
Proposed Rule for Apache Alaska
Corporation. In the Apache comment
letter, the NRDC provides a list of
approximately eight measures that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
NMFS ‘‘failed to consider or adequately
consider.’’
Response: NMFS provided a detailed
discussion of proposed mitigation
measures and the MMPA’s ‘‘least
practicable impact’’ standard in the
notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR
37465, June 30, 2015), which are
repeated in the ‘‘Mitigation’’ section of
this notice. The measures that NRDC
alleges NMFS failed to consider or
adequately consider are identified and
discussed below:
(1) Field testing and use of alternative
technologies, such as vibroseis and
gravity gradiometry, to reduce or
eliminate the need for airguns and
delaying seismic acquisition in higher
density areas until the alternative
technology of marine vibroseis becomes
available: EMALL requested takes of
marine mammals incidental to the
geotechnical and geophysical survey
operations described in the IHA
application, which identified use of
only a 60 in3 airgun array with a
distance to the 160-dB isopleth of 300m.
It would be inappropriate for NMFS to
fundamentally change the specified
activity for which EMALL submitted an
IHA application by requiring that they
acquire data using an entirely different
system of sound sources, especially if
the alternate technology cannot meet the
objectives of the proposed activity.
EMALL knows of no current
technology scaled for industrial use that
is reliable enough to meet the
environmental challenges of operating
in Cook Inlet. An airgun is only one of
several sources proposed by EMALL
and alternative quieting technologies for
the boomer, chirp, and vibracore are
undeveloped at this time.
(2) Required use of the lowest
practicable source level in conducting
airgun activity: EMALL is requesting to
use a 60 in3 airgun, a very small source,
for a duration of 7 days. This size of
airgun, and the length and area of the
survey, is necessary to meet EMALL’s
program objectives and minimize
geotechnical, geohazard, and
constructability risks.
(3) Seasonal exclusions around river
mouths, including early spring (preApril 14) exclusions around the Beluga
River and Susitna Delta, and avoidance
of other areas that have a higher
probability of beluga occurrence: NMFS
has required a 10 mile (16 km)
exclusion zone around the Susitna Delta
(which includes the Beluga River) in
this IHA. Survey operations involving
the use of airgun, boomer, chirp, and
vibracore will be prohibited in this area
between April 15 and October 15. In
both the MMPA and ESA analysis,
NMFS determined that this date range is
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
sufficient to protect Cook Inlet beluga
whales and the critical habitat in the
Susitna Delta. While data indicate that
belugas may use this part of the inlet
year round, peak use occurs from early
May to late September. NMFS added a
2-week buffer on both ends of this peak
usage period to add extra protection to
feeding and calving belugas.
(4) Limitation of the mitigation airgun
to the longest shot interval necessary to
carry out its intended purpose: EMALL
is not proposing to use a mitigation
airgun, therefore this measure does not
apply.
(5) Immediate suspension of airgun
activity, pending investigation, if any
beluga strandings occur within or
within an appropriate distance of the
survey area: The IHA requires EMALL
to immediately cease activities and
report unauthorized takes of marine
mammals, such as live stranding, injury,
serious injury, or mortality. NMFS will
review the circumstances of EMALL’s
unauthorized take and determine if
additional mitigation measures are
needed before activities can resume to
minimize the likelihood of further
unauthorized take and to ensure MMPA
compliance. EMALL may not resume
activities until notified by NMFS.
Separately, the IHA includes measures
if injured or dead marine mammals are
sighted and the cause cannot be easily
determined. In those cases, NMFS will
review the circumstances of the
stranding event while EMALL continues
with operations.
(6) Establishment of a larger exclusion
zone for beluga whales that is not
predicated on the detection of whale
aggregations or cow-calf pairs: Both the
proposed IHA and the issued IHA
contain a requirement for EMALL to
delay the start of active acoustic source
use or shutdown the active acoustic
sources if a beluga whale is visually
sighted approaching or within the 160dB disturbance zone until the animal(s)
are no longer present within the 160-dB
zone. The measure applies to the
sighting of any beluga whale, not just
sighting of groups or cow-calf pairs.
Comment 15: FOA comments on
several issues related to cumulative
impacts analysis including: (1) NMFS
contradicts the Draft Recovery Plan by
issuing Authorizations, given that two
concerns of note in the Plan include
noise and cumulative/synergistic effects
(2) each phase of the Alaska LNG project
will add to increasing cumulative effects
to Cook Inlet belugas (3) over the past
three years, NMFS has authorized at
least 288 takes by Level B harassment of
Cook Inlet beluga whales and that takes
for AK LNG must be addressed in the
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
context of cumulative impacts from
other authorized takes.
Response: Neither the MMPA nor
NMFS’ implementing regulations
specify how to consider other activities
and their impacts on the same
populations when conducting a
negligible impact analysis. However,
consistent with the 1989 preamble for
NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989), the impacts
from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into the negligible impact
analysis via their impacts on the
environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the density/distribution and
status of the species, population size
and growth rate, and ambient noise).
Although caution is warranted for
noise-producing activities, especially in
light of all of the other activities in Cook
Inlet, NMFS does not agree that
issuance of any Authorizations for take
of Cook Inlet beluga whales is
contradictory to recommendations in
the Draft Recovery Plan for this species.
NMFS is taking a cautious approach,
both in the context of this particular
project and Cook Inlet more broadly, to
ensure that all impacts on beluga whales
are adequately analyzed and minimized.
For example, the shutdown of active
sound sources at the 160-dB disturbance
zone for beluga whales in Cook Inlet is
a precautionary measure not used in
other areas to ensure the minimization
of behavioral harassment of belugas.
Additionally, a precautionary approach
was taken in estimating the number of
exposures from the proposed EMALL
survey, which is likely an overestimate
of individuals taken for reason
explained below in the ‘Take
Estimation’’ section related to number of
individuals taken versus instances of
exposure.
More broadly, NMFS has announced
our intent to prepare an EIS to better
analyze cumulative impacts from
potential increasing anthropogenic
activities to Cook Inlet beluga whales. In
addition, cumulative effects were
addressed in the EA and Biological
Opinion prepared for this action. The
cumulative effects section of the EA has
been expanded from the draft EA to
discuss potential effects in greater
detail. These documents, as well as the
Alaska Marine Stock Assessments and
the most recent abundance estimate for
Cook Inlet beluga whales (Shelden et al,
2015), are part of NMFS’ Administrative
Record for this action, and provided the
decision maker with information
regarding other activities in the action
area that affect marine mammals, an
analysis of cumulative impacts, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
other information relevant to the
determination made under the MMPA.
NMFS will continue to analyze
monitoring reports from authorized
activities, applicable new science, and
the increase of Cook Inlet activities in
the context of the Cook Inlet Beluga
Whale Recovery Plan, and will also
continue to carefully evaluate proposed
activities and recommend mitigation
measures to ensure that the issuance of
MMPA authorizations does not
negatively impact the recovery of Cook
Inlet belugas.
Comment 16: FOA comments that the
Environmental Assessment (EA) was
difficult to find and recommends that
NMFS re-open the public comment
period for the EA as well as the Draft
Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet belugas.
Response: NMFS posted a draft of the
EA on its Web site for public review:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/energy_other.htm. On July
6th, the MMC notified NMFS that the
documents were placed under ‘‘Other’’
and not ‘‘Natural Gas’’ on the Web site.
Once notified, NMFS corrected the
error. During and after that time NMFS
received no other communication from
any persons or organizations requesting
to be directed to those documents or
asking for clarification as to their
location. Therefore, NMFS does not
believe the EA should be reopened for
public comment. The Draft Recovery
Plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales is a
separate action and the reopening of its
comment period is not relevant to this
Authorization.
Comment 17: FOA comments that the
Marine Terminal area lies within beluga
Critical Habitat. FOA also comments
that effects on habitat could include
disturbance to prey from noise, and
disturbances to the environment from
the platform’s legs and project
discharges from sampling activities.
Response: The Federal Register notice
of the proposed Authorization analyzed
potential effects to prey species and
marine mammal habitat. The possibility
of adverse modification to Critical
Habitat through reduction in prey
species is addressed in the Biological
Opinion, which resulted in a finding of
no adverse modification to critical
habitat.
Comment 20: FOA comments that
issuance of an IHA to EMALL would
violate the ESA because granting the
IHA would ‘‘appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of
species in the wild.’’
Response: NMFS disagrees with
FOA’s comment. NMFS Office of
Protected Resources (Permits and
Conservation Division) initiated and
engaged in formal consultation with
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
50995
NMFS Alaska Regional Office (Protected
Resources Division) under section 7 of
the ESA on the issuance of the IHA to
EMALL. NMFS’s Biological Opinion
concluded that the issuance of the IHA
is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species (e.g., would
not appreciably reduce the ability of any
listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction
to survive and recover in the wild) or
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Comment 21: FOA comments that
NMFS must include a discussion of
ethics and the rights of wildlife to
manage wildlife-human interactions and
suggests that this approach is consistent
with NEPA and the ability to provide a
‘‘full and fair discussion’’ of the issues
and inform decision makes and the
public of the reasonable alternatives that
would avoid or minimize adverse
impacts or enhance the quality of the
human environment. 40 CFR 1502.1.
Response: Consistent with the
requirements of NEPA and CEQ’s
implementing regulations, NMFS
prepared an Environmental Assessment
prior to issuing an IHA to EMALL that
includes a comprehensive assessment of
the effects of this action and alternative
actions on the human environment,
including the impacts of the action and
alternative actions on marine mammal
populations. While NMFS shares FAO’s
concerns regarding the ethical treatment
of animals, it is not possible to directly
address ethical treatment in the context
of incidental and unintended effects
(i.e., those authorized by this action), as
any pain resulting from these impacts is
far removed from any operator decisions
and is neither observable, measurable or
controllable. Instead, IHAs aim to
minimize actual adverse effects to
marine mammal individuals and
populations.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
Marine mammals that regularly
inhabit upper Cook Inlet and Nikiski
activity areas are the beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) (Table 6).
However, these species are found there
in relatively low numbers, and generally
only during the summer fish runs
(Nemeth et al. 2007, Boveng et al. 2012).
Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are
occasionally observed in upper Cook
Inlet where they have been observed
attempting to prey on beluga whales
(Shelden et al. 2003). Based on a
number of factors, Shelden et al. (2003)
concluded that the killer whales found
in upper Cook Inlet to date are the
transient type, while resident types
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
50996
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
occasionally enter lower Cook Inlet.
Marine mammals occasionally found in
lower Cook Inlet include humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray
whales (Eschrichtius robustus), minke
whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata),
Dall’s porpoise (Phocoena dalli), and
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus).
Background information of species
evaluated in this Authorization is
detailed in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE COOK INLET ACTION AREA
ESA/MMPA
status 1;
strategic
(Y/N)
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Relative occurrence in Cook
Inlet; season of occurrence
-;N
-:N
E/D;Y
2,347 (N/A; 2,084; 2009) ........
345 (N/A; 303; 2003)
312 (0.10; 280; 2012) .............
Gulf of Alaska .........................
-;Y
31,046 (0.214; 25,987; 1998)
Cook Inlet/Shelikof .................
-;N
22,900 (0.053; 21,896; 2006)
Occasionally sighted in Lower
Cook Inlet.
Use upper Inlet in summer
and lower in winter: annual.
Widespread in the Inlet: annual (less in winter).
Frequently found in upper and
lower inlet; annual (more in
northern Inlet in summer).
Stock
Killer whale ..............................
Beluga whale ...........................
Alaska Resident .....................
Alaska Transient .....................
Cook Inlet ...............................
Harbor porpoise ......................
Harbor seal ..............................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Species
Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)
The Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) is a small
geographically isolated population that
is separated from other beluga
populations by the Alaska Peninsula.
The population is genetically (mtDNA)
distinct from other Alaska populations,
suggesting that the Peninsula is an
effective barrier to genetic exchange
(O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997) and that
these whales may have been separated
from other stocks at least since the last
ice age. Laidre et al. (2000) examined
data from over 20 marine mammal
surveys conducted in the northern Gulf
of Alaska and found that sightings of
belugas outside Cook Inlet were
exceedingly rare, and these were
composed of a few stragglers from the
Cook Inlet DPS observed at Kodiak
Island, Prince William Sound, and
Yakutat Bay. Several marine mammal
surveys specific to Cook Inlet (Laidre et
al. 2000, Speckman and Piatt 2000),
including those that concentrated on
beluga whales (Rugh et al. 2000, 2005a),
clearly indicate that this stock largely
confines itself to Cook Inlet. There is no
indication that these whales make
forays into the Bering Sea where they
might intermix with other Alaskan
stocks.
The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was
originally estimated at 1,300 whales in
1979 (Calkins 1989) and has been the
focus of management concerns since
experiencing a dramatic decline in the
1990s. Between 1994 and 1998 the stock
declined 47%, which has been
attributed to overharvesting by
subsistence hunting. During that period,
subsistence hunting was estimated to
have annually removed 10–15% of the
population. Only five belugas have been
harvested since 1999, yet the population
has continued to decline (Allen and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Angliss 2014), with the most recent
estimate at only 312 animals (Allen and
Angliss 2014). The NMFS listed the
population as ‘‘depleted’’ in 2000 as a
consequence of the decline, and as
‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA in 2008
when the population failed to recover
following a moratorium on subsistence
harvest. In April 2011, the NMFS
designated critical habitat for the Cook
Inlet beluga whale under the ESA
(Figure 2 in the application).
Prior to the decline, this DPS was
believed to range throughout Cook Inlet
and occasionally into Prince William
Sound and Yakutat (Nemeth et al.
2007). However, the range has
contracted coincident with the
population reduction (Speckman and
Piatt 2000). During the summer and fall,
beluga whales are concentrated near the
Susitna River mouth, Knik Arm,
Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon Bay
(Nemeth et al. 2007) where they feed on
migrating eulachon (Thaleichthys
pacificus) and salmon (Onchorhynchus
spp.) (Moore et al. 2000). The limits of
Critical Habitat Area 1 reflect the
summer distribution (Figure 3 in the
application). During the winter, beluga
whales concentrate in deeper waters in
the mid-inlet to Kalgin Island, and in
the shallow waters along the west shore
of Cook Inlet to Kamishak Bay. The
limits of Critical Habitat Area 2 reflect
the winter distribution. Some whales
may also winter in and near Kachemak
Bay.
Goetz et al. (2012) modeled beluga
use in Cook Inlet based on the NMFS
aerial surveys conducted between 1994
and 2008. The combined model results
shown in Figure 3 in the application
indicate a very clumped distribution of
summering beluga whales, and that
lower densities of belugas are expected
to occur in most of the pipeline survey
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
area (but not necessarily specific G&G
survey locations; see Section 6.3 in the
application) and the vicinity of the
proposed Marine Terminal. However,
Cook Inlet beluga whales begin moving
into Knik Arm around August 15 where
they spend about a month feeding on
Eagle River salmon. The area between
Nikiski, Kenai, and Kalgin Island
provides important wintering habitat for
Cook Inlet beluga whales. Use of this
area would be expected between fall
and spring, with animals largely absent
during the summer months when G&G
surveys would occur (Goetz et al. 2012).
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
Two different stocks of killer whales
inhabit the Cook Inlet region of Alaska:
The Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf
of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea
Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss
2014). The Alaska Resident killer whale
stock is estimated at 2,347 animals and
occurs from Southeast Alaska to the
Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2014).
Resident killer whales feed exclusively
on fish and are genetically distinct from
transient whales (Saulitis et al. 2000).
The transient killer whales feed
primarily on marine mammals (Saulitis
et al. 2000). The transient population
inhabiting the Gulf of Alaska shares
mitochondrial DNA haplotypes with
whales found along the Aleutian Islands
and the Bering Sea, suggesting a
common stock, although there appears
to be some subpopulation genetic
structuring occurring to suggest the gene
flow between groups is limited (see
Allen and Angliss 2014). For the three
regions combined, the transient
population has been estimated at 587
animals (Allen and Angliss 2014).
Killer whales are occasionally
observed in lower Cook Inlet, especially
near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
et al. 2003, Rugh et al. 2005a). The few
whales that have been photographically
identified in lower Cook Inlet belong to
resident groups more commonly found
in nearby Kenai Fjords and Prince
William Sound (Shelden et al. 2003).
Prior to the 1980s, killer whale sightings
in upper Cook Inlet were very rare.
During aerial surveys conducted
between 1993 and 2004, killer whales
were observed on only three flights, all
in the Kachemak and English Bay area
(Rugh et al. 2005a). However, anecdotal
reports of killer whales feeding on
belugas in upper Cook Inlet began
increasing in the 1990s, possibly in
response to declines in sea lion and
harbor seal prey elsewhere (Shelden et
al. 2003). These sporadic ventures of
transient killer whales into beluga
summering grounds have been
implicated as a possible contributor to
the decline of Cook Inlet belugas in the
1990s, although the number of
confirmed mortalities from killer whales
is small (Shelden et al. 2003). If killer
whales were to venture into upper Cook
Inlet in 2015, they might be encountered
during the G&G Program.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
Harbor porpoise are small
(approximately 1.2 m [4 ft] in length),
relatively inconspicuous toothed
whales. The Gulf of Alaska Stock is
distributed from Cape Suckling to
Unimak Pass and was most recently
estimated at 31,046 animals (Allen and
Angliss 2014). They are found primarily
in coastal waters less than 100 m (328
ft) deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010) where
they feed on Pacific herring (Clupea
pallasii), other schooling fishes, and
cephalopods.
Although they have been frequently
observed during aerial surveys in Cook
Inlet, most sightings of harbor porpoise
are of single animals, and are
concentrated at Chinitna and Tuxedni
bays on the west side of lower Cook
Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a). Dahlheim et al.
(2000) estimated the 1991 Cook Inletwide population at only 136 animals.
Also, during marine mammal
monitoring efforts conducted in upper
Cook Inlet by Apache from 2012 to
2014, harbor porpoise represented less
than 2% of all marine mammal
sightings. However, they are one of the
three marine mammals (besides belugas
and harbor seals) regularly seen in
upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth et al. 2007),
especially during spring eulachon and
summer salmon runs. Because harbor
porpoise have been observed throughout
Cook Inlet during the summer months,
including mid-inlet waters, they
represent species that might be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
50997
encountered during G&G Program
surveys in upper Cook Inlet.
Humpback Whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae)
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)
Although there is considerable
distributional overlap in the humpback
whale stocks that use Alaska, the whales
seasonally found in lower Cook Inlet are
probably of the Central North Pacific
stock. Listed as endangered under the
ESA, this stock has recently been
estimated at 7,469, with the portion of
the stock that feeds in the Gulf of Alaska
estimated at 2,845 animals (Allen and
Angliss 2014). The Central North Pacific
stock winters in Hawaii and summers
from British Columbia to the Aleutian
Islands (Calambokidis et al. 1997),
including Cook Inlet.
Humpback use of Cook Inlet is largely
confined to lower Cook Inlet. They have
been regularly seen near Kachemak Bay
during the summer months (Rugh et al.
2005a), and there is a whale-watching
venture in Homer capitalizing on this
seasonal event. There are anecdotal
observations of humpback whales as far
north as Anchor Point, with recent
summer observations extending to Cape
Starichkof (Owl Ridge 2014). Because of
the southern distribution of humpbacks
in Cook Inlet, it is unlikely that they
will be encountered during this activity
in close enough proximity to cause
Level B harassment. Therefore, no take
is authorized for humpback whales.
At over 150,000 animals state-wide
(Allen and Angliss 2014), harbor seals
are one of the more common marine
mammal species in Alaskan waters.
They are most commonly seen hauled
out at tidal flats and rocky areas. Harbor
seals feed largely on schooling fish such
as Alaska Pollock, Pacific cod, salmon,
Pacific herring, eulachon, and squid.
Although harbor seals may make
seasonal movements in response to
prey, they are resident to Alaska and do
not migrate.
The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Stock,
ranging from approximately Anchorage
down along the south side of the Alaska
Peninsula to Unimak Pass, has been
recently estimated at a stable 22,900
(Allen and Angliss 2014). Large
numbers concentrate at the river mouths
and embayments of lower Cook Inlet,
including the Fox River mouth in
Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al. 2005a).
Montgomery et al. (2007) recorded over
200 haulout sites in lower Cook Inlet
alone. However, only a few dozen to a
couple hundred seals seasonally occur
in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a),
mostly at the mouth of the Susitna River
where their numbers vary with the
spring eulachon and summer salmon
runs (Nemeth et al. 2007, Boveng et al.
2012). Review of NMFS aerial survey
data collected from 1993–2012 (Shelden
et al. 2013) finds that the annual high
counts of seals hauled out in Cook Inlet
ranged from about 100–380, with most
of these animals hauling out at the
mouths of the Theodore and Lewis
Rivers. There are certainly thousands of
harbor seals occurring in lower Cook
Inlet, but no references have been found
showing more than about 400 harbor
seals occurring seasonally in upper
Cook Inlet. In 2012, up to 100 harbor
seals were observed hauled out at the
mouths of the Theodore and Lewis
rivers (located about 16 km [10 mi]
northeast of the pipeline survey area)
during monitoring activity associated
with Apache’s 2012 Cook Inlet seismic
program, and harbor seals constituted
60 percent of all marine mammal
sightings by Apache observers during
2012 to 2014 survey and monitoring
efforts (L. Parker, Apache, pers. comm.).
Montgomery et al. (2007) also found
that seals elsewhere in Cook Inlet move
in response to local steelhead
(Onchorhynchus mykiss) and salmon
runs. Harbor seals may be encountered
during G&G surveys in Cook Inlet.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific
stock of gray whale migrates 8,000
kilometers (5,000 miles) northward from
breeding lagoons in Baja California to
feeding grounds in the Bering and
Chukchi seas, reversing their travel
again in the fall (Rice and Wolman
1971). Their migration route is for the
most part coastal until they reach the
feeding grounds. A small portion of
whales do not annually complete the
full circuit, as small numbers can be
found in the summer feeding along the
Oregon, Washington, British Columbia,
and Alaskan coasts (Rice et al. 1984,
Moore et al. 2007).
Human exploitation reduced this
stock to an estimated ‘‘few thousand’’
animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002).
However, by the late 1980s, the stock
was appearing to reach carrying
capacity and estimated to be at 26,600
animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). By
2002, that stock had been reduced to
about 16,000 animals, especially
following unusually high mortality
events in 1999 and 2000 (Allen and
Angliss 2014). The stock has continued
to grow since then and is currently
estimated at 19,126 animals with a
minimum estimate of 18,017 (Carretta et
al. 2013). Most gray whales migrate past
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
50998
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
the mouth of Cook Inlet to and from
northern feeding grounds. However,
small numbers of summering gray
whales have been noted by fisherman
near Kachemak Bay and north of
Anchor Point. Further, summering gray
whales were seen offshore of Cape
Starichkof by marine mammal observers
monitoring Buccaneer’s Cosmopolitan
drilling program in 2013 (Owl Ridge
2014). Regardless, gray whales are not
expected to be encountered in upper
Cook Inlet, where the activity is
concentrated, north of Kachemak Bay.
Therefore, it is unlikely that they will be
encountered during this activity in close
enough proximity to cause Level B
harassment and are not considered
further in this final Authorization
notice.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Minke Whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata)
Minke whales are the smallest of the
rorqual group of baleen whales reaching
lengths of up to 35 feet. They are also
the most common of the baleen whales,
although there are no population
estimates for the North Pacific, although
estimates have been made for some
portions of Alaska. Zerbini et al. (2006)
estimated the coastal population
between Kenai Fjords and the Aleutian
Islands at 1,233 animals.
During Cook Inlet-wide aerial surveys
conducted from 1993 to 2004, minke
whales were encountered only twice
(1998, 1999), both times off Anchor
Point 16 miles northwest of Homer.
Recently, several minke whales were
recorded off Cape Starichkof in early
summer 2013 during exploratory
drilling conducted there (Owl Ridge
2014). There are no records north of
Cape Starichkof, and this species is
unlikely to be seen in upper Cook Inlet.
There is little chance of encountering a
minke whale during these activities.
Therefore, no take of minke whales is
authorized.
Dall’s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)
Dall’s porpoise are widely distributed
throughout the North Pacific Ocean
including Alaska, although they are not
found in upper Cook Inlet and the
shallower waters of the Bering, Chukchi,
and Beaufort Seas (Allen and Angliss
2014). Compared to harbor porpoise,
Dall’s porpoise prefer the deep offshore
and shelf slope waters. The Alaskan
population has been estimated at 83,400
animals (Allen and Angliss 2014),
making it one of the more common
cetaceans in the state. Dall’s porpoise
have been observed in lower Cook Inlet,
including Kachemak Bay and near
Anchor Point (Owl Ridge 2014), but
sightings there are rare. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
concentration of sightings of Dall’s
porpoise in a southerly part of the Inlet
suggest it is unlikely they will be
encountered during EMALL’s activities.
Therefore, no take of Dall’s porpoise is
authorized.
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
The Western Stock of the Steller sea
lion is defined as all populations west
of longitude 144° W. to the western end
of the Aleutian Islands. The most recent
estimate for this stock is 45,649 animals
(Allen and Angliss 2014), considerably
less than that estimated 140,000 animals
in the 1950s (Merrick et al. 1987).
Because of this dramatic decline, the
stock was listed under the ESA as a
threatened DPS in 1990, and relisted as
endangered in 1997. Critical habitat was
designated in 1993, and is defined as a
20-nautical-mile radius around all major
rookeries and haulout sites. The 20nautical-mile buffer was established
based on telemetry data that indicated
these sea lions concentrated their
summer foraging effort within this
distance of rookeries and haul outs.
Steller sea lions inhabit lower Cook
Inlet, especially in the vicinity of Shaw
Island and Elizabeth Island (Nagahut
Rocks) haulout sites (Rugh et al. 2005a),
but are rarely seen in upper Cook Inlet
(Nemeth et al. 2007). Of the 42 Steller
sea lion groups recorded during Cook
Inlet aerial surveys between 1993 and
2004, none were recorded north of
Anchor Point and only one in the
vicinity of Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al.
2005a). Marine mammal observers
associated with Buccaneer’s drilling
project off Cape Starichkof did observe
seven Steller sea lions during the
summer of 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014).
The upper reaches of Cook Inlet may
not provide adequate foraging
conditions for sea lions for establishing
a major haul out presence. Steller sea
lions feed largely on walleye pollock,
salmon and arrowtooth flounder during
the summer, and walleye pollock and
Pacific cod during the winter (Sinclair
and Zeppelin 2002), none of which,
except for salmon, are found in
abundance in upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth
et al. 2007). Steller sea lions are unlikely
to be encountered during operations in
upper Cook Inlet, as they are primarily
encountered along the Kenai Peninsula,
especially closer to Anchor Point.
Therefore, no take of Steller sea lion is
authorized.
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
(seismic airgun operations, sub-bottom
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
profiler chirper and boomer, vibracore)
of the specified activity 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 NMFS expects to be
taken by this activity. The ‘‘Negligible
Impact Analysis’’ section will include
the analysis of how this specific
proposed activity would impact marine
mammals and will consider the content
of this section, the ‘‘Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment’’ section, the
‘‘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.
NMFS intends to provide a
background of potential effects of
EMALL’s activities in this section.
Operating active acoustic sources have
the potential for adverse effects on
marine mammals. The majority of
anticipated impacts would be from the
use of active 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. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
(Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al.,
1997; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and
Hastings, 2008).
Southall et al. (2007) designated
‘‘functional hearing groups’’ for marine
mammals based on available behavioral
data; audiograms derived from auditory
evoked potentials; anatomical modeling;
and other data. Southall et al. (2007)
also estimated the lower and upper
frequencies of functional hearing for
each group. However, animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of
their functional hearing range and are
more sensitive to a range of frequencies
within the middle of their functional
hearing range.
The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are:
• Low frequency cetaceans (13
species of mysticetes): Functional
hearing estimates occur between
approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 25 kHz
(extended from 22 kHz based on data
indicating that some mysticetes can hear
above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi
and Stein, 2007; Ketten and Mountain,
2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32
species of dolphins, six species of larger
toothed whales, and 19 species of
beaked and bottlenose whales):
Functional hearing estimates 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 estimates occur
between approximately 200 Hz and 180
kHz; and
• Pinnipeds in water: Phocid (true
seals) functional hearing estimates occur
between approximately 75 Hz and 100
kHz (Hemila et al., 2006; Mulsow et al.,
2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and
otariid (seals and sea lions) functional
hearing estimates occur between
approximately 100 Hz to 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this
document, Cook Inlet beluga whales,
harbor porpoise, killer whales, and
harbor seals (3 odontocetes and 1
phocid) would likely occur in the action
area. Table 2 presents the classification
of these species into their respective
functional hearing group. NMFS
consider a species’ functional hearing
group when analyzing the effects of
exposure to sound on marine mammals.
environment are relatively rare.
Richardson et al. (1995) defined
tolerance as the occurrence of marine
mammals in areas where they are
exposed to human activities or
manmade noise. In many cases,
tolerance develops by the animal
habituating to the stimulus (i.e., the
gradual waning of responses to a
repeated or ongoing stimulus)
(Richardson, et al., 1995), but because of
ecological or physiological
requirements, many marine animals
may need to remain in areas where they
are exposed to chronic stimuli
(Richardson, et al., 1995).
Numerous studies have shown that
pulsed sounds from airguns are often
readily detectable in the water at
distances of many kilometers. Several
studies have also shown that marine
mammals at distances of more than a
few kilometers from operating seismic
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 the marine
mammal group. Although various
baleen whales and toothed whales, and
(less frequently) pinnipeds have been
shown to react behaviorally to airgun
pulses under some conditions, at other
TABLE 2—CLASSIFICATION OF MARINE times marine mammals of all three types
MAMMALS THAT COULD POTEN- have shown no overt reactions (Stone,
TIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Moulton
et al. 2005, 2006) and (MacLean and
ACTIVITY AREA IN COOK INLET, Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006).
2015 BY FUNCTIONAL HEARING
Weir (2008) observed marine mammal
GROUP
responses to seismic pulses from a 24
airgun array firing a total volume of
[Southall et al., 2007]
either 5,085 in3 or 3,147 in3 in Angolan
waters between August 2004 and May
Mid-Frequency HearBeluga whale, killer
ing Range.
whale.
2005. Weir (2008) recorded a total of
High Frequency Hear- Harbor porpoise.
207 sightings of humpback whales (n =
ing Range.
66), sperm whales (n = 124), and
Pinnipeds in Water
Harbor seal.
Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) and
Hearing Range.
reported that there were no significant
differences in encounter rates (sightings
1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on per hour) for humpback and sperm
Marine Mammals
whales according to the airgun array’s
The effects of sounds from airgun
operational status (i.e., active versus
operations might include one or more of silent).
Bain and Williams (2006) examined
the following: Tolerance, masking of
the effects of a large airgun array
natural sounds, behavioral disturbance,
temporary or permanent impairment, or (maximum total discharge volume of
1,100 in 3) on six species in shallow
non-auditory physical or physiological
waters off British Columbia and
effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon
Washington: Harbor seal, California sea
et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007;
lion, Steller sea lion, gray whale, Dall’s
Southall et al., 2007). The effects of
porpoise, and harbor porpoise. Harbor
noise on marine mammals are highly
porpoises showed reactions at received
variable, often depending on species
levels less than 155 dB re: 1 mPa at a
and contextual factors (based on
distance of greater than 70 km (43 mi)
Richardson et al., 1995).
from the seismic source (Bain and
Tolerance
Williams, 2006). However, the tendency
Studies on marine mammals’
for greater responsiveness by harbor
tolerance to sound in the natural
porpoise is consistent with their relative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
50999
responsiveness to boat traffic and some
other acoustic sources (Richardson, et
al., 1995; Southall, et al., 2007). In
contrast, the authors reported that gray
whales seemed to tolerate exposures to
sound up to approximately 170 dB re:
1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006) and
Dall’s porpoises occupied and tolerated
areas receiving exposures of 170–180 dB
re: 1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006;
Parsons, et al., 2009). The authors
observed several gray whales that
moved away from the airguns toward
deeper water where sound levels were
higher due to propagation effects
resulting in higher noise exposures
(Bain and Williams, 2006). However, it
is unclear whether their movements
reflected a response to the sounds (Bain
and Williams, 2006). Thus, the authors
surmised that the lack of gray whale
responses to higher received sound
levels were ambiguous at best because
one expects the species to be the most
sensitive to the low-frequency sound
emanating from the airguns (Bain and
Williams, 2006).
Pirotta et al., (2014) observed shortterm responses of harbor porpoises to a
two-dimensional (2–D) seismic survey
in an enclosed bay in northeast Scotland
which did not result in broad-scale
displacement. The harbor porpoises that
remained in the enclosed bay area
reduced their buzzing activity by 15
percent during the seismic survey
(Pirotta, et al., 2014). Thus, the authors
suggest that animals exposed to
anthropogenic disturbance may make
trade-offs between perceived risks and
the cost of leaving disturbed areas
(Pirotta, et al., 2014).
Masking
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).
The term masking refers to the
inability of an animal to recognize the
occurrence of an acoustic stimulus
because of interference of another
acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009).
Thus, masking is the obscuring of
sounds of interest by other sounds, often
at similar frequencies. It is a
phenomenon that affects animals that
are 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,
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51000
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
or entire populations in certain
circumstances.
Introduced underwater sound may,
through masking, reduce the effective
communication distance of a marine
mammal species if the frequency of the
source is close to that used as a signal
by the marine mammal, and if the
anthropogenic sound is present for a
significant fraction of the time
(Richardson et al., 1995).
Marine mammals are thought to be
able to compensate for masking by
adjusting their acoustic behavior
through shifting call frequencies,
increasing call volume, and increasing
vocalization rates. For example in one
study, blue whales increased call rates
when exposed to noise from seismic
surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di
Iorio and Clark, 2010). Other studies
reported that some North Atlantic right
whales exposed to high shipping noise
increased call frequency (Parks et al.,
2007) and some humpback whales
responded to low-frequency active sonar
playbacks by increasing song length
(Miller et al., 2000). Additionally,
beluga whales 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).
Studies have shown that some baleen
and toothed whales continue calling in
the presence of seismic pulses, and
some researchers have heard these calls
between the seismic pulses (e.g.,
McDonald et al., 1995; Greene et al.,
1999; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea et
al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, 2005b,
2006; and Dunn and Hernandez, 2009).
In contrast, Clark and Gagnon (2006)
reported that fin whales in the northeast
Pacific Ocean went silent for an
extended period starting soon after the
onset of a seismic survey in the area.
Similarly, NMFS is aware of one report
that observed sperm whales ceased calls
when exposed to pulses from a very
distant seismic ship (Bowles et al.,
1994). However, more recent studies
have found that sperm whales
continued calling in the presence of
seismic pulses (Madsen et al., 2002;
Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004;
Holst et al., 2006; and Jochens et al.,
2008).
Risch et al., (2012) documented
reductions in humpback whale
vocalizations in the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary concurrent
with transmissions of the Ocean
Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing
(OAWRS) low-frequency fish sensor
system at distances of 200 km (124 mi)
from the source. The recorded OAWRS
produced series of frequency modulated
pulses and the signal received levels
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
ranged from 88 to 110 dB re: 1 mPa
(Risch, et al., 2012). The authors
hypothesized that individuals did not
leave the area but instead ceased singing
and noted that the duration and
frequency range of the OAWRS signals
(a novel sound to the whales) were
similar to those of natural humpback
whale song components used during
mating (Risch et al., 2012). Thus, the
novelty of the sound to humpback
whales in the study area provided a
compelling contextual probability for
the observed effects (Risch et al., 2012).
However, the authors did not state or
imply that these changes had long-term
effects on individual animals or
populations (Risch et al., 2012).
Several studies have also reported
hearing dolphins and porpoises calling
while airguns were operating (e.g.,
Gordon et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004;
Holst et al., 2005a, b; and Potter et al.,
2007). The sounds important to small
odontocetes are predominantly at much
higher frequencies than the dominant
components of airgun sounds, thus
limiting the potential for masking in
those species.
Although some degree of masking is
inevitable when high levels of manmade
broadband sounds are present in the
sea, marine mammals have evolved
systems and behavior that function to
reduce the impacts of masking.
Odontocete conspecifics may readily
detect structured signals, such as the
echolocation click sequences of small
toothed whales 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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 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, 2010; Holt et
al., 2009).
These data demonstrating adaptations
for reduced masking pertain mainly to
the very high frequency echolocation
signals of toothed whales. There is less
information about the existence of
corresponding mechanisms at moderate
or low frequencies or in other types of
marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva
et al. (1980) found that, for the
bottlenose dolphin, the angular
separation between a sound source and
a masking noise source had little effect
on the degree of masking when the
sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast
to the pronounced effect at higher
frequencies. Studies have noted
directional hearing 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.
Behavioral Disturbance
Marine mammals may behaviorally
react to sound when exposed to
anthropogenic noise. Reactions to
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
sound, if any, depend on species, state
of maturity, experience, current activity,
reproductive state, time of day, and
many other factors (Richardson et al.,
1995; D’Spain & Wartzok, 2004;
Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007).
Types of behavioral reactions can
include the following: 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,
one could expect the consequences of
behavioral modification to be
biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, and/or
reproduction (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder,
2007; Weilgart, 2007). Examples of
behavioral modifications that could
impact growth, survival, or
reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing
patterns (such as those associated with
beaked whale stranding related to
exposure to military mid-frequency
tactical sonar);
• Permanent habitat abandonment
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 (Richardson et al.,
1995; Southall et al., 2007). Many
studies have also shown that marine
mammals at distances more than a few
kilometers away often show no apparent
response when exposed to seismic
activities (e.g., Madsen & Mohl, 2000 for
sperm whales; Malme et al., 1983, 1984
for gray whales; and Richardson et al.,
1986 for bowhead whales). Other
studies have shown that marine
mammals continue important behaviors
in the presence of seismic pulses (e.g.,
Dunn & Hernandez, 2009 for blue
whales; Greene Jr. et al., 1999 for
bowhead whales; Holst and Beland,
2010; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Holst et
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
al., 2005; Nieukirk et al., 2004;
Richardson, et al., 1986; Smultea et al.,
2004).
Baleen Whales: Studies have shown
that underwater sounds from seismic
activities are often readily detectable by
baleen whales in the water at distances
of many kilometers (Castellote et al.,
2012 for fin whales).
Observers have seen various species
of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and
minke whales) in areas ensonified by
airgun pulses (Stone, 2003; MacLean
and Haley, 2004; Stone and Tasker,
2006), and have localized calls from
blue and fin whales in areas with airgun
operations (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995;
Dunn and Hernandez, 2009; Castellote
et al., 2010). Sightings by observers on
seismic vessels off the United Kingdom
from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during
times of good visibility, sighting rates
for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei
whales) were similar when large arrays
of airguns were shooting versus silent
(Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006).
However, these whales tended to exhibit
localized avoidance, remaining
significantly further (on average) from
the airgun array during seismic
operations compared with non-seismic
periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006).
Ship-based monitoring studies of
baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei,
minke, and humpback whales) in the
northwest Atlantic found that overall,
this group had lower sighting rates
during seismic versus non-seismic
periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010). The
authors observed that baleen whales as
a group were significantly farther from
the vessel during seismic compared
with non-seismic periods. Moreover, the
authors observed that the whales swam
away more often from the operating
seismic vessel (Moulton and Holst,
2010). Initial sightings of blue and
minke whales were significantly farther
from the vessel during seismic
operations compared to non-seismic
periods and the authors observed the
same trend for fin whales (Moulton and
Holst, 2010). Also, the authors observed
that minke whales most often swam
away from the vessel when seismic
operations were underway (Moulton
and Holst, 2010).
Toothed Whales: Few systematic data
are available describing reactions of
toothed whales to noise pulses.
However, systematic work on sperm
whales is underway (e.g., Gordon et al.,
2006; Madsen et al., 2006; Winsor and
Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller
et al., 2009) and there is an increasing
amount of information about responses
of various odontocetes, including killer
whales and belugas, to seismic surveys
based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
51001
2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and
Miller, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006;
Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker,
2006; Potter et al., 2007; Hauser et al.,
2008; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Weir,
2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Richardson
et al., 2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010).
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.
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). The studies note
that killer whales were significantly
farther from large airgun arrays during
periods of active airgun operations
compared with periods of silence. 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 (Stone, 2003;
Gordon et al., 2004).
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).
Delphinids
Seismic operators and protected
species observers (observers) on seismic
vessels regularly see dolphins and other
small toothed whales near operating
airgun arrays, but in general there is a
tendency for most delphinids to show
some avoidance of operating seismic
vessels (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c;
Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone,
2003; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst
et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006;
Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009;
Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and
Holst, 2010). 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 (e.g.,
Moulton and Miller, 2005). 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
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51002
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
as the operating airgun array passed by
the animals. 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., 1995).
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).
Porpoises
Results for porpoises depend upon
the species. The limited available data
suggest that harbor porpoises show
stronger avoidance of seismic operations
than do Dall’s porpoises (Stone, 2003;
MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and
Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker,
2006). Dall’s porpoises seem relatively
tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean
and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams,
2006), although they too have been
observed to avoid large arrays of
operating airguns (Calambokidis and
Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006).
This apparent difference in
responsiveness of these two porpoise
species is consistent with their relative
responsiveness to boat traffic and some
other acoustic sources (Richardson et
al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
airguns is operating than when it is
silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Stone and
Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008; Moulton and
Holst, 2010). In most cases, the
avoidance radii for delphinids appear to
be small, on the order of one km or less,
and some individuals show no apparent
avoidance.
Captive bottlenose dolphins exhibited
changes in behavior when exposed to
strong pulsed sounds similar in
duration to those typically used in
seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 2000,
2002, 2005). However, the animals
tolerated high received levels of sound
(pk–pk level >200 dB re 1 mPa) before
exhibiting aversive behaviors.
Hearing Impairment
Exposure to high intensity sound for
a sufficient duration may result in
auditory effects such as a noise-induced
threshold shift—an increase in the
auditory threshold after exposure to
noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors
that influence the amount of threshold
shift include the amplitude, duration,
frequency content, temporal pattern,
and energy distribution of noise
exposure. The magnitude of hearing
threshold shift normally decreases over
time following cessation of the noise
exposure. The amount of threshold shift
just after exposure is the initial
threshold shift. If the threshold shift
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
threshold returns to the pre-exposure
value), it is a temporary threshold shift
(Southall et al., 2007).
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
Pinnipeds
Pinnipeds are not likely to show a
strong avoidance reaction to the airgun
sources proposed for use. Visual
monitoring from seismic vessels has
shown only slight (if any) avoidance of
airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if
any) changes in behavior. Monitoring
work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during
1996–2001 provided considerable
information regarding the behavior of
Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic
pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and
Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects
usually involved arrays of 6 to 16
airguns with total volumes of 560 to
1,500 in 3. The combined results suggest
that some seals avoid the immediate
area around seismic vessels. In most
survey years, ringed seal (Phoca
hispida) 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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
EMALL’ssurvey, NMFS does not expect
that animals would experience levels
high enough or durations long enough
to result in PTS given that the airgun is
a very low volume airgun, and the use
of the airgun will be restricted to seven
days in a small geographic area.
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 non-human animals.
Recent studies by Kujawa and
Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011)
found that despite completely reversible
threshold shifts that leave cochlear
sensory cells intact, large threshold
shifts could cause synaptic level
changes and delayed cochlear nerve
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
degeneration in mice and guinea pigs,
respectively. NMFS notes that the high
level of TTS that led to the synaptic
changes shown in these studies is in the
range of the high degree of TTS that
Southall et al. (2007) used to calculate
PTS levels. It is unknown whether
smaller levels of TTS would lead to
similar changes. NMFS, however,
acknowledges the complexity of noise
exposure on the nervous system, and
will re-examine this issue as more data
become available.
For marine mammals, published data
are limited to the captive bottlenose
dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and
Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et
al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 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).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold
shift (TS) of a harbor porpoise after
exposing it to airgun noise with a
received sound pressure level (SPL) at
200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 mPa, which
corresponds to a sound exposure level
of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after integrating
exposure. NMFS currently uses the rootmean-square (rms) of received SPL at
180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 mPa as the
threshold above which permanent
threshold shift (PTS) could occur for
cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively.
Because the airgun noise is a broadband
impulse, one cannot directly determine
the equivalent of rms SPL from the
reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However,
applying a conservative conversion
factor of 16 dB for broadband signals
from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al.,
2000) to correct for the difference
between peak-to-peak levels reported in
Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the
rms SPL for TTS would be
approximately 184 dB re: 1 mPa, and the
received levels associated with PTS
(Level A harassment) would be higher.
This is still above NMFS’ current 180
dB rms re: 1 mPa threshold for injury.
However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of
harbor porpoises is lower than other
cetacean species empirically tested
(Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et
al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012).
A recent study on bottlenose dolphins
(Schlundt, et al., 2013) measured
hearing thresholds at multiple
frequencies to determine the amount of
TTS induced before and after exposure
to a sequence of impulses produced by
a seismic air gun. The air gun volume
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
and operating pressure varied from 40–
150 in3 and 1000–2000 psi, respectively.
After three years and 180 sessions, the
authors observed no significant TTS at
any test frequency, for any combinations
of air gun volume, pressure, or
proximity to the dolphin during
behavioral tests (Schlundt, et al., 2013).
Schlundt et al. (2013) suggest that the
potential for airguns to cause hearing
loss in dolphins is lower than
previously predicted, perhaps as a result
of the low-frequency content of air gun
impulses compared to the highfrequency hearing ability of dolphins.
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 one 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 survey;
TTS is also unlikely. 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
compared to cetacean reactions.
Non-auditory Physical Effects: Nonauditory physical effects might occur in
marine mammals exposed to strong
underwater pulsed sound. Possible
types of non-auditory physiological
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
51003
effects or injuries that theoretically
might occur in mammals close to a
strong sound source include stress,
neurological effects, bubble formation,
and other types of organ or tissue
damage. Some marine mammal species
(i.e., beaked whales) may be especially
susceptible to injury and/or stranding
when exposed to strong pulsed sounds.
Classic stress responses begin when
an animal’s central nervous system
perceives a potential threat to its
homeostasis. That perception triggers
stress responses regardless of whether a
stimulus actually threatens the animal;
the mere perception of a threat is
sufficient to trigger a stress response
(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005;
Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central
nervous system perceives a threat, it
mounts a biological response or defense
that consists of a combination of the
four general biological defense
responses: Behavioral responses;
autonomic nervous system responses;
neuroendocrine responses; or immune
responses.
In the case of many stressors, an
animal’s first and most economical (in
terms of biotic costs) response is
behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor or avoidance of continued
exposure to a stressor. An animal’s
second line of defense to stressors
involves the sympathetic part of the
autonomic nervous system and the
classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response,
which includes the cardiovascular
system, the gastrointestinal system, the
exocrine glands, and the adrenal
medulla to produce changes in heart
rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal
activity that humans commonly
associate with stress. These responses
have a relatively short duration and may
or may not have significant long-term
effects on an animal’s welfare.
An animal’s third line of defense to
stressors involves its neuroendocrine or
sympathetic nervous systems; the
system that has received the most study
has been the hypothalmus-pituitaryadrenal (HPA) 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, the pituitary
hormones regulate virtually all
neuroendocrine functions affected by
stress—including immune competence,
reproduction, metabolism, and
behavior. 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.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51004
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
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 the
body quickly replenishes after
alleviation of the stressor. 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, it diverts energy
resources 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 (McEwen and Wingfield,
2003). 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 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 exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses have also been documented
fairly well through controlled
experiment; because this physiology
exists in every vertebrate that has been
studied, it is not surprising that stress
responses and their costs have been
documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see,
Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998;
Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al.,
2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens
et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer,
2000). Although no information has
been collected on the physiological
responses of marine mammals to
anthropogenic sound exposure, studies
of other marine animals and terrestrial
animals would lead us to expect some
marine mammals to experience
physiological stress responses and,
perhaps, physiological responses that
would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon
exposure to anthropogenic sounds.
For example, Jansen (1998) reported
on the relationship between acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
exposures and physiological responses
that are indicative of stress responses in
humans (e.g., elevated respiration and
increased heart rates). Jones (1998)
reported on reductions in human
performance when faced with acute,
repetitive exposures to acoustic
disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998)
reported on the physiological stress
responses of osprey to low-level aircraft
noise while Krausman et al. (2004)
reported on the auditory and physiology
stress responses of endangered Sonoran
pronghorn to military overflights. Smith
et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noiseinduced physiological transient stress
responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e.,
goldfish) that accompanied short- and
long-term hearing losses. Welch and
Welch (1970) reported physiological
and behavioral stress responses that
accompanied damage to the inner ears
of fish and several mammals.
Hearing is one of the primary senses
marine mammals use to gather
information about their environment
and communicate with conspecifics.
Although empirical information on the
relationship between 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,
NMFS assumes that acoustic exposures
sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS
would be accompanied by physiological
stress responses. More importantly,
marine mammals 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
evidence of this upon exposure to
airgun pulses.
In general, there are few data about
the potential for strong, anthropogenic
underwater sounds to cause nonauditory physical effects in marine
mammals. Such effects, if they occur at
all, would presumably be limited to
short distances and to activities that
extend over a prolonged period. The
available data do not allow
identification of a specific exposure
level above which non-auditory effects
can be expected (Southall et al., 2007)
or any meaningful quantitative
predictions of the numbers (if any) of
marine mammals that might be affected
in those ways. There is no definitive
evidence that any of these effects occur
even for marine mammals in close
proximity to large arrays of airguns. In
addition, marine mammals that show
behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels,
including some pinnipeds, are unlikely
to incur non-auditory impairment or
other physical effects. The low volume
of the airgun proposed for this activity
combined with the limited scope of use
makes non-auditory physical effects
from airgun use, including stress,
unlikely. Therefore, we do not
anticipate such effects would occur
given the brief duration of exposure
during the survey.
Stranding and Mortality
When a living or dead marine
mammal swims or floats onto shore and
becomes ‘‘beached’’ or incapable of
returning to sea, the event is a
‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin
and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and
Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The
legal definition for a stranding under the
MMPA is that ‘‘(A) a marine mammal is
dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of
the United States; or (ii) in waters under
the jurisdiction of the United States
(including any navigable waters); or (B)
a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on
a beach or shore of the United States
and is unable to return to the water; (ii)
on a beach or shore of the United States
and, although able to return to the
water, is in need of apparent medical
attention; or (iii) in the waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States
(including any navigable waters), but is
unable to return to its natural habitat
under its own power or without
assistance.’’
Marine mammals strand for a variety
of reasons, such as infectious agents,
biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery
interaction, ship strike, unusual
oceanographic or weather events, sound
exposure, or combinations of these
stressors sustained concurrently or in
series. However, the cause or causes of
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
most strandings are unknown (Geraci et
al., 1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980;
Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest
that the physiology, behavior, habitat
relationships, age, or condition of
cetaceans may cause them to strand or
might pre-dispose them to strand when
exposed to another phenomenon. These
suggestions are consistent with the
conclusions of numerous other studies
that have demonstrated that
combinations of dissimilar stressors
commonly combine to kill an animal or
dramatically reduce its fitness, even
though one exposure without the other
does not produce the same result
(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries
et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley
et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea,
2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al.,
2004). Given the low volume and source
level of the proposed airgun, standing
and mortality are not anticipated due to
use of the airgun proposed for this
activity.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2. Potential Effects of Other Acoustic
Devices
Sub-Bottom Profiler
EMALL would also operate a subbottom profiler chirp and boomer from
the source vessel during the proposed
survey. The chirp’s sounds are very
short pulses, occurring for one ms, six
times per second. Most of the energy in
the sound pulses emitted by the profiler
is at 2–6 kHz, and the beam is directed
downward. The chirp has a maximum
source level of 202 dB re: 1 mPa, with
a tilt angle of 90 degrees below
horizontal and a beam width of 24
degrees. The sub-bottom profiler boomer
will shoot approximately every 3.125m,
with shots lasting 1.5 to 2 seconds. Most
of the energy in the sound pulses
emitted by the boomer is concentrated
between 0.5 and 6 kHz, with a source
level of 205dB re: 1mPa. The tilt of the
boomer is 90 degrees below horizontal,
but the emission is omnidirectional.
Kremser et al., (2005) noted that the
probability of a cetacean swimming
through the area of exposure when a
bottom profiler emits a pulse is small—
because if the animal was in the area, it
would have to pass the transducer at
close range in order to be subjected to
sound levels that could cause temporary
threshold shift and would likely exhibit
avoidance behavior to the area near the
transducer rather than swim through at
such a close range.
Masking: Both the chirper and boomer
sub-bottom profilers produce impulsive
sound exceeding 160 dB re 1 mPa-m
(rms). The louder boomer operates at a
source value of 205 dB re 1 mPa-m (rms),
but with a frequency between 0.5 and 6
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
kHz, which is lower than the maximum
sensitivity hearing range of any the local
species (belugas—40–130 kHz;, killer
whales—7–30 kHz; harbor porpoise—
100–140 kHz; and harbor seals—10–30
kHz; Wartzok and Ketten 1999, Southall
et al. 2007, Kastelein et al. 2002). While
the chirper is not as loud (202 dB re 1
mPa-m [rms]), it does operate at a higher
frequency range (2–16 kHz), and within
the maximum sensitive range of all of
the local species except beluga whales.
Marine mammal communications
would not likely be masked appreciably
by the profiler’s signals given the
directionality of the signal and the brief
period when an individual mammal is
likely to be within its beam.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the
profiler overlaps with hearing ranges of
many marine mammal species in the
area, the profiler’s signals do not
overlap with the predominant
frequencies in the calls, which would
avoid significant masking.
Behavioral Responses: Responses to
the profiler are likely to be similar to the
other pulsed sources discussed earlier if
received at the same levels. The
behavioral response of local marine
mammals to the operation of the subbottom profilers is expected to be
similar to that of the small airgun. The
odontocetes are likely to avoid the subbottom profiler activity, especially the
naturally shy harbor porpoise, while the
harbor seals might be attracted to them
out of curiosity. However, because the
sub-bottom profilers operate from a
moving vessel, and the maximum radius
to the 160 dB harassment threshold is
only 263 m (863 ft), the area and time
that this equipment would be affecting
a given location is very small.
Hearing Impairment and Other
Physical Effects: It is unlikely that the
sub-bottom profilers produce sound
levels strong enough to cause hearing
impairment or other physical injuries
even in an animal that is (briefly) in a
position near the source (Wood et al.,
2012). The likelihood of marine
mammals moving away from the source
make if further unlikely that a marine
mammal would be able to approach
close to the transducers.
Animals may avoid the area around
the survey vessels, thereby reducing
exposure. Any disturbance to marine
mammals is likely to be in the form of
temporary avoidance or alteration of
opportunistic foraging behavior near the
survey location.
Vibracore
EMALL would conduct vibracoring in
a corridor across a northern portion of
Cook Inlet and near the marine terminal
area for a total of 55 vibracoring
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
51005
occurrences. While duration is
dependent on sediment type, the
driving mechanism, which emits sound
at a source level of 187dB re: 1mPa, will
only bore for 1 to 2 minutes. The sound
is emitted at a frequency of 10 Hz to 20
kHz. Cores will be bored at
approximately every 4 km along the
pipeline corridor, for about 22 cores in
that area. Approximately 33 cores will
be taken in the Marine Terminal area.
Masking: It is unlikely that masking
will occur due to vibracore operations.
Chorney et al. (2011) conducted sound
measurements on an operating
vibracorer in Alaska and found that it
emitted a sound pressure level at 1-m
source of 188 dB re 1 mPa-m (rms), with
a frequency range of between 10 Hz and
20 kHz. While the frequency range
overlaps the lower ends of the
maximum sensitivity hearing ranges of
harbor porpoises, killer whales, and
harbor seals, and the continuous sound
extends 2.54 km (1.6 mi) to the 120 dB
threshold, the vibracorer will operate
about the one or two minutes it takes to
drive the core pipe 7 m (20 ft) into the
sediment, and approximately twice per
day. Therefore, there is very little
opportunity for this activity to mask the
communication of local marine
mammals.
Behavioral Response: It is unlikely
that vibracoring will elicit behavioral
responses from marine mammal species
in the area. An analysis of similar
survey activity in New Zealand
classified the likely effects from
vibracore and similar activity to be some
habitat degradation and prey species
effects, but primarily behavioral
responses, although the species in the
analyzed area were different to those
found in Cook Inlet (Thompson, 2012).
There are no data on the behavioral
response to vibracore activity of marine
mammals in Cook Inlet. The closest
analog to vibracoring might be
exploratory drilling, although there is a
notable difference in magnitude
between an oil and gas drilling
operation and collecting sediment
samples with a vibracorer. Thomas et al.
(1990) played back drilling sound to
four captive beluga whales and found
no statistical difference in swim
patterns, social groups, respiration and
dive rates, or stress hormone levels
before and during playbacks. There is
no reason to believe that beluga whales
or any other marine mammal exposed to
vibracoring sound would behave any
differently, especially since vibracoring
occurs for only one or two minutes.
Hearing Impairment and Other
Physical Effects: The vibracorer operates
for only one or two minutes at a time
with a 1-m source of 187.4 dB re 1 mPa-
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51006
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
m (rms). It is neither loud enough nor
does it operate for a long enough
duration to induce either TTS or PTS.
Stranding and Mortality
Stress, Stranding, and Mortality
Safety zones will be established to
prevent acoustical injury to local marine
mammals, especially injury that could
indirectly lead to mortality. Also, G&G
sound is not expected to cause resonate
effects to gas-filled spaces or airspaces
in marine mammals based on the
research of Finneran (2003) on beluga
whales showing that the tissue and
other body masses dampen any
potential effects of resonance on ear
cavities, lungs, and intestines. Chronic
exposure to sound could lead to
physiological stress eventually causing
hormonal imbalances (NRC 2005). If
survival demands are already high, and/
or additional stressors are present, the
ability of the animal to cope decreases,
leading to pathological conditions or
death (NRC 2005). Potential effects may
be greatest where sound disturbance can
disrupt feeding patterns including
displacement from critical feeding
grounds. However, all G&G exposure to
marine mammals would be of duration
measured in minutes.
Specific sound-related processes that
lead to strandings and mortality are not
well documented, but may include (1)
swimming in avoidance of a sound into
shallow water; (2) a change in behavior
(such as a change in diving behavior)
that might contribute to tissue damage,
gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac
arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage,
or other forms of trauma; (3) a
physiological change such as a
vestibular response leading to a
behavioral change or stress-induced
hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn
to tissue damage; and, (4) tissue damage
directly from sound exposure, such as
through acoustically mediated bubble
formation and growth or acoustic
resonance of tissues (Wood et al. 2012).
Some of these mechanisms are unlikely
to apply in the case of impulse G&G
sounds, especially since airguns and
sub-bottom profilers produce broadband
sound with low pressure rise.
Strandings to date which have been
attributed to sound exposure related to
date from military exercises using
narrowband mid-frequency sonar with a
much greater likelihood to cause
physical damage (Balcomb and Claridge
2001, NOAA and USN, 2001,
Hildebrand 2005).
The low intensity, low frequency,
broadband sound associated with
airguns and sub-bottom profilers,
combined with the shutdown safety
zone mitigation measure for the airgun
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
would prevent physical damage to
marine mammals. The vibracoring
would also be unlikely to have the
capability of causing physical damage to
marine mammals because of its low
intensity and short duration.
3. Potential Effects of Vessel Movement
and Collisions
Vessel movement in the vicinity of
marine mammals has the potential to
result in either a behavioral response or
a direct physical interaction. We discuss
both scenarios here.
Behavioral Responses to Vessel
Movement: There are limited data
concerning marine mammal behavioral
responses to vessel traffic and vessel
noise, and a lack of consensus among
scientists with respect to what these
responses mean or whether they result
in short-term or long-term adverse
effects. In those cases where there is a
busy shipping lane or where there is a
large amount of vessel traffic, marine
mammals may experience acoustic
masking (Hildebrand, 2005) if they are
present in the area (e.g., killer whales in
Puget Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et
al., 2008). In cases where vessels
actively approach marine mammals
(e.g., whale watching or dolphin
watching boats), scientists have
documented that animals exhibit altered
behavior such as increased swimming
speed, erratic movement, and active
avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983;
Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon,
1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams et
al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003),
reduced blow interval (Ritcher et al.,
2003), disruption of normal social
behaviors (Lusseau, 2003; 2006), and the
shift of behavioral activities which may
increase energetic costs (Constantine et
al., 2003; 2004). A detailed review of
marine mammal reactions to ships and
boats is available in Richardson et al.
(1995). For each of the marine mammal
taxonomy groups, Richardson et al.
(1995) provides the following
assessment regarding reactions to vessel
traffic:
Pinnipeds: Reactions by pinnipeds to
vessel disturbance largely involve
relocation. Harbor seals hauled out on
mud flats have been documented
returning to the water in response to
nearing boat traffic. Vessels that
approach haulouts slowly may also
elicit alert reactions without flushing
from the haulout. Small boats with
slow, constant speed elicit the least
noticeable reactions. However, in
Alaska specifically, harbor seals are
documented to tolerate fishing vessels
with no discernable reactions, and
habituation is common (Burns in
Johnson et al., 1989).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Porpoises: Harbor porpoises are often
seen changing direction in the presence
of vessel traffic. Avoidance has been
documented up to 1km away from an
approaching vessel, but the avoidance
response is strengthened in closer
proximity to vessels (Barlow, 1998;
Palka, 1993). This avoidance behavior is
not consistent across all porpoises, as
Dall’s porpoises have been observed
approaching boats.
Toothed whales: In summary, toothed
whales sometimes show no avoidance
reaction to vessels, or even approach
them. However, avoidance can occur,
especially in response to vessels of
types used to chase or hunt the animals.
This may cause temporary
displacement, but we know of no clear
evidence that toothed whales have
abandoned significant parts of their
range because of vessel traffic.
Behavioral responses to stimuli are
complex and influenced to varying
degrees by a number of factors, such as
species, behavioral contexts,
geographical regions, source
characteristics (moving or stationary,
speed, direction, etc.), prior experience
of the animal and physical status of the
animal. For example, studies have
shown that beluga whales’ reactions
varied when exposed to vessel noise
and traffic. In some cases, naive beluga
whales exhibited rapid swimming from
ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7
mi) away, and showed changes in
surfacing, breathing, diving, and group
composition in the Canadian high
Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley
et al., 1990). In other cases, beluga
whales were more tolerant of vessels,
but responded differentially to certain
vessels and operating characteristics by
reducing their calling rates (especially
older animals) in the St. Lawrence River
where vessel traffic is common (Blane
and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay,
Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed
when surrounded by fishing vessels and
resisted dispersal even when
purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania,
1971).
In reviewing more than 25 years of
whale observation data, Watkins (1986)
concluded that whale reactions to vessel
traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous
experience and current activity:
Habituation often occurred rapidly,
attention to other stimuli or
preoccupation with other activities
sometimes overcame their interest or
wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed
that over the years of exposure to ships
in the Cape Cod area, minke whales
changed from frequent positive interest
(e.g., approaching vessels) to generally
uninterested reactions; fin whales
changed from mostly negative (e.g.,
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
avoidance) to uninterested reactions;
right whales apparently continued the
same variety of responses (negative,
uninterested, and positive responses)
with little change; and humpbacks
dramatically changed from mixed
responses that were often negative to
reactions that were often strongly
positive. Watkins (1986) summarized
that ‘‘whales near shore, even in regions
with low vessel traffic, generally have
become less wary of boats and their
noises, and they have appeared to be
less easily disturbed than previously. In
particular locations with intense
shipping and repeated approaches by
boats (such as the whale-watching areas
of Stellwagen Bank), more and more
whales had positive reactions to familiar
vessels, and they also occasionally
approached other boats and yachts in
the same ways.’’
Vessel Strike
Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause
major wounds, which may lead to the
death of the animal. An animal at the
surface could be struck directly by a
vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the
bottom of a vessel, or a vessel’s
propeller could injure an animal just
below the surface. The severity of
injuries typically depends on the size
and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and
Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001;
Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007).
The most vulnerable marine mammals
are those that spend extended periods of
time at the surface in order to restore
oxygen levels within their tissues after
deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In
addition, some baleen whales, such as
the North Atlantic right whale, seem
generally unresponsive to vessel sound,
making them more susceptible to vessel
collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These
species are primarily large, slow moving
whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g.,
bottlenose dolphin) move quickly
through the water column and are often
seen riding the bow wave of large ships.
Marine mammal responses to vessels
may include avoidance and changes in
dive pattern (NRC, 2003).
An examination of all known ship
strikes from all shipping sources
(civilian and military) indicates vessel
speed is a principal factor in whether a
vessel strike results in death (Knowlton
and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001;
Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and
Taggart, 2007). In assessing records with
known vessel speeds, Laist et al. (2001)
found a direct relationship between the
occurrence of a whale strike and the
speed of the vessel involved in the
collision. The authors concluded that
most deaths occurred when a vessel was
traveling in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
51007
8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous streams.
Several anadromous streams (Threemile Creek, Indian Creek, and two
unnamed streams) enter the Cook Inlet
within the survey areas. Other
Entanglement
anadromous streams are located within
Entanglement can occur if wildlife
8.0 km (5.0 mi) of the survey areas. The
becomes immobilized in survey lines,
survey program will not prevent beluga
cables, nets, or other equipment that is
access to the mouths of these streams
moving through the water column. The
and will result in no short-term or longproposed survey would require towing
term loss of intertidal or subtidal waters
approximately 150 ft of cables. This size that are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth and
of the array generally carries a lower
within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous
risk of entanglement for marine
streams. Minor seafloor impacts will
mammals. Wildlife, especially slow
occur in these areas from grab samples,
moving individuals, such as large
PCPTs, vibracores, or geotechnical
whales, have a low probability of
borings but will have no effect on the
entanglement due to the low amount of
area as beluga habitat once the vessel or
slack in the lines, slow speed of the
jack-up platform has left. The survey
survey vessel, and onboard monitoring.
program will have no effect on this
Pinnipeds and porpoises are the least
habitat.
likely to entangle in equipment, as most
Cook Inlet beluga whales may avoid
documented cases of entanglement
areas ensonified by the geophysical or
involve fishing gear and prey species
geotechnical activities that generate
(Gales et al., 2003). There are no
sound with frequencies within the
reported cases of entanglement from
beluga hearing range and at levels above
geophysical equipment in the Cook Inlet threshold values. This includes the
area.
chirp sub-bottom profiler with a radius
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal of 184 m (604 ft), the boomer subbottom profiler with a radius of 263 m
Habitat
(863 ft), the airgun with a radius of 300
The G&G Program survey areas are
m (984 ft) and the vibracores with a
primarily within upper Cook Inlet,
radius of 2.54 km (1.58 mi). The subalthough the Marine Terminal survey
bottom profilers and the airgun will be
area is located near Nikiski just south of operated from a vessel moving at speeds
the East Foreland (technically in Lower
of about 4 kt. The operation of a
Cook Inlet), which includes habitat for
vibracore has a duration of
prey species of marine mammals,
approximately 1–2 minutes. All of these
including fish as well as invertebrates
activities will be conducted in relatively
eaten by Cook Inlet beluga whales. This open areas of the Cook Inlet within
area contains Critical Habitat for Cook
Critical Habitat Area 2. Given the size
Inlet belugas, is near the breeding
and openness of the Cook Inlet in the
grounds for the local harbor seal
survey areas, and the relatively small
population, and serves as an occasional
area and mobile/temporary nature of the
feeding ground for killer whales and
zones of ensonification, the generation
harbor porpoises. Cook Inlet is a large
of sound by the G&G activities is not
subarctic estuary roughly 299 km (186
expected to result in any restriction of
mi) in length and averaging 96 km (60
passage of belugas within or between
mi) in width. It extends from the city of
critical habitat areas. The jack-up
Anchorage at its northern end and flows platform from which the geotechnical
into the Gulf of Alaska at its
borings will be conducted will be
southernmost end. For descriptive
attached to the seafloor with legs, and
purposes, Cook Inlet is separated into
will be in place at a given location for
unique upper and lower sections,
up to 4–5 days, but given its small size
divided at the East and West Forelands, (Table 4 in the application) would not
where the opposing peninsulas create a
result in any obstruction of passage by
natural waistline in the length of the
belugas.
waterway, measuring approximately 16
Upper Cook Inlet comprises the area
km (10 mi) across (Mulherin et al. 2001). between Point Campbell (Anchorage)
Potential effects on beluga habitat
down to the Forelands, and is roughly
would be limited to noise effects on
95 km (59 mi) in length and 24.9 km
prey; direct impact to benthic habitat
(15.5 mi) in width (Mulherin et al.
from jack-up platform leg placement,
2001). Five major rivers (Knik,
and sampling with grabs, coring, and
Matanuska, Susitna, Little Susitna, and
boring; and small discharges of drill
Beluga) deliver freshwater to upper
cuttings and drilling mud associated
Cook Inlet, carrying a heavy annual
sediment load of over 40 million tons of
with the borings. Portions of the survey
eroded materials and glacial silt (Brabets
areas include waters of Cook Inlet that
1999). As a result, upper Cook Inlet is
are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth and within
mph; 13 kts). Given the slow vessel
speeds necessary for data acquisition,
ship strike is unlikely to occur during
this survey.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51008
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
relatively shallow, averaging 18.3 m (60
ft) in depth. It is characterized by
shoals, mudflats, and a wide coastal
shelf, less than 17.9 m (59 ft) deep,
extending from the eastern shore. A
deep trough exists between Trading Bay
and the Middle Ground Shoal, ranging
from 35 to 77 m (114–253 ft) deep
(NOAA Nautical Chart 16660). The
substrate consists of a mixture of coarse
gravels, cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay,
and silt (Bouma et al. 1978, Rappeport
1982).
Upper Cook Inlet experiences some of
the most extreme tides in the world,
demonstrated by a mean tidal range
from 4.0 m (13 ft) at the Gulf of Alaska
end to 8.8 m (29 ft) near Anchorage
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013).
Tidal currents reach 3.9 kts per second
(Mulherin et al. 2001) in upper Cook
Inlet, increasing to 5.7–7.7 kts per
second near the Forelands where the
inlet is constricted. Each tidal cycle
creates significant turbulence and
vertical mixing of the water column in
the upper inlet (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2013), and are reversing,
meaning that they are marked by a
period of slack tide followed an
acceleration in the opposite direction
(Mulherin et al. 2001).
Because of scouring, mixing, and
sediment transport from these currents,
the marine invertebrate community is
very limited (Pentec 2005). Of the 50
stations sampled by Saupe et al. 2005
for marine invertebrates in Southcentral
Alaska, their upper Cook Inlet station
had by far the lowest abundance and
diversity. Further, the fish community
of upper Cook Inlet is characterized
largely by migratory fish—eulachon and
Pacific salmon—returning to spawning
rivers, or outmigrating salmon smolts.
Moulton (1997) documented only 18
fish species in upper Cook Inlet
compared to at least 50 species found in
lower Cook Inlet (Robards et al. 1999).
Lower Cook Inlet extends from the
Forelands southwest to the inlet mouth
demarked by an approximate line
between Cape Douglas and English Bay.
Water circulation in lower Cook Inlet is
dominated by the Alaska Coastal
Current (ACC) that flows northward
along the shores of the Kenai Peninsula
until it turns westward and is mixed by
the combined influences of freshwater
input from upper Cook Inlet, wind,
topography, tidal surges, and the
coriolis effect (Field and Walker 2003,
MMS 1996). Upwelling by the ACC
brings nutrient-rich waters to lower
Cook Inlet and contributes to a
biologically rich and productive ecology
(Sambrotto and Lorenzen 1986). Tidal
currents average 2–3 kt per second and
are rotary in that they do not completely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
go slack before rotating around into an
opposite direction (Gatto 1976,
Mulherin et al. 2001). Depths in the
central portion of lower Cook Inlet are
60–80 m (197–262 ft) and decrease
steadily toward the shores (Muench
1981). Bottom sediments in the lower
inlet are coarse gravel and sand that
grade to finer sand and mud toward the
south (Bouma 1978).
Coarser substrate support a wide
variety of invertebrates and fish
including Pacific halibut, Dungeness
crab, tanner crab, pandalid shrimp,
Pacific cod, and rock sole, while the
soft-bottom sand and silt communities
are dominated by polychaetes, bivalves
and other flatfish (Field and Walker
2003). These species constitute prey
species for several marine mammals in
Cook Inlet, including pinnipeds and
Cook Inlet belugas. Sea urchins and sea
cucumbers are important otter prey and
are found in shell debris communities.
Razor clams are found all along the
beaches of the Kenai Peninsula. In
general, the lower Cook Inlet marine
invertebrate community is of low
abundance, dominated by polychaetes,
until reaching the mouth of the inlet
(Saupe et al. 2005). Overall, the lower
Cook Inlet marine ecosystem is fed by
midwater communities of
phytoplankton and zooplankton, with
the latter composed mostly of copepods
and barnacle and crab larvae (Damkaer
1977, English 1980).
G&G Program activities that could
potentially impact marine mammal
habitats include sediment sampling
(vibracore, boring, grab sampling) on the
sea bottom, placement of the jack-up
platform spud cans, and acoustical
injury of prey resources. However, there
are few benthic resources in the survey
area that could be impacted by
collection of the small samples (Saupe
et al. 2005).
Acoustical effects to marine mammal
prey resources are also limited.
Christian et al. (2004) studied seismic
energy impacts on male snow crabs and
found no significant increases in
physiological stress due to exposure to
high sound pressure levels. No
acoustical impact studies have been
conducted to date on the above fish
species, but studies have been
conducted on Atlantic cod and sardine.
Davis et al. (1998) cited various studies
that found no effects to Atlantic cod
eggs, larvae, and fry when received
levels were 222 dB. Effects found were
to larval fish within about 5.0 m (16 ft),
and from air guns with volumes
between 49,661 and 65,548 cm3 (3,000
and 4,000 in3). Similarly, effects to
sardine were greatest on eggs and 2-day
larvae, but these effects were greatest at
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
0.5 m (1.6 ft), and again confined to 5.0
m (16 ft). Further, Greenlaw et al. (1988)
found no evidence of gross histological
damage to eggs and larvae of northern
anchovy exposed to seismic air guns,
and concluded that noticeable effects
would result only from multiple, close
exposures. Based on these results, much
lower energy impulsive geophysical
equipment planned for this program
would not damage larval fish or any
other marine mammal prey resource.
Potential damage to the Cook Inlet
benthic community will be limited to
the actual surface area of the four spud
cans that form the ‘‘foot’’ of each 0.762m (30-in) diameter leg, the 42 0.1524-m
(6-in) diameter borings, and the 55
0.0762-m (3-in) diameter vibracore
samplings (plus several grab and PCPT
samples). Collectively, these samples
would temporarily damage about a
hundred square meters of benthic
habitat relative to the size (nearly 21,000
km2/8,108 mi2) of Cook Inlet. Overall,
sediment sampling and acoustical
effects on prey resources will have a
negligible effect at most on the marine
mammal habitat within the G&G
Program survey area. Some prey
resources might be temporarily
displaced, but no long-term effects are
expected.
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program
will result in a number of minor
discharges to the waters of Cook Inlet.
Discharges associated with the
geotechnical borings will include: (1)
The discharge of drill cuttings and
drilling fluids and (2) the discharge of
deck drainage (runoff of precipitation
and deck wash water) from the
geotechnical drilling platform. Other
vessels associated with the G&G surveys
will discharge wastewaters that are
normally associated with the operation
of vessels in transit including deck
drainage, ballast water, bilge water, noncontact cooling water, and gray water.
The discharges of drill cuttings,
drilling fluids, and deck drainage
associated with the geotechnical borings
will be within limitations authorized by
the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation under the
Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System. The drill cuttings consist of
natural geologic materials of the seafloor
sediments brought to the surface via the
drill bit/drill stem of the rotary drilling
operation, will be relatively minor in
volume, and deposit over a very small
area of Cook Inlet seafloor. The drilling
fluids which are used to lubricate the
bit, stabilize the hole, and viscosify the
slurry for transport of the solids to the
surface will consist of seawater and guar
gum. Guar gum is a high-molecular
weight polysaccharide (galactose and
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
mannose units) derived from the ground
seeds of the plant Cyampsis gonolobus.
It is a non-toxic fluid also used as a food
additive in soups, drinks, breads, and
meat products.
Vessel discharges will be authorized
under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP)
for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of Vessels. Each vessel will
have obtained authorization under the
VGP and will discharge according to the
conditions and limitations mandated by
the permit. As required by statute and
regulation, the EPA has made a
determination that such discharges will
not result in any unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment,
including:
• significant adverse changes in
ecosystem diversity, productivity and
stability of the biological community
within the area of discharge and
surrounding biological communities,
• threat to human health through
direct exposure to pollutants or through
consumption of exposed aquatic
organisms, or
• loss of aesthetic, recreational,
scientific or economic values which is
unreasonable in relation to the benefit
derived from the discharge.
Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse
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).
To mitigate potential acoustical
impacts to local marine mammals,
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will
operate aboard the vessels from which
the chirper, boomer, airgun, and
vibracorer will be deployed. The PSOs
will implement the mitigation measures
described in the Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
(Appendix A of the application). These
mitigations include: (1) Establishing
safety zones to ensure marine mammals
are not injured by sound pressure levels
exceeding Level A injury thresholds; (2)
shutting down the airgun when required
to avoid harassment of beluga whales
approaching the 160-dB disturbance
zone; and (3) timing survey activity to
avoid concentrations of beluga whales
on a seasonal basis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Before chirper, boomer, airgun, and
vibracoring operations begin each day
and before restarting operations after a
shutdown of 15 minutes or greater, the
PSOs will ‘‘clear’’ both the Level A and
Level B Zones of Influence (ZOIs—area
from the source to the 160dB or 180/
190dB isopleths) of marine mammals by
intensively surveying these ZOIs prior
to activity to confirm that marine
mammals are not seen in the applicable
area. All three geophysical activities
(boomer, chirp, airgun) will be shut
down in mid-operation at the approach
to any marine mammal to the Level A
safety zone, and at the approach of an
ESA-listed beluga whale to the Level B
harassment zone for these sources. The
geotechnical vibracoring lasts only one
or two minutes and shutdowns are
likely impossible. Finally, the G&G
Program will be planned to avoid high
beluga whale density areas. This would
be achieved by conducting surveys at
the Marine Terminal and the southern
end of the pipeline survey area when
beluga whales are farther north, feeding
near the Susitna Delta, and completing
activities in the northern portion of the
pipeline survey area when the Cook
Inlet beluga whales have begun to
disperse from the Susitna Delta and
other summer concentration areas.
Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation
Monitoring
EMALL will hire qualified and
NMFS-approved PSOs. These PSOs will
be stationed aboard the geophysical
survey source or support vessels during
sub-bottom profiling, air gun, and
vibracoring operations. A single senior
PSO will be assigned to oversee all
Marine Mammal Mitigation and
Monitoring Program mandates and
function as the on-site person-inchargeimplementing the 4MP.
Generally, two PSOs will work on a
rotational basis during daylight hours
with shifts of 4 to 6 hours, and one PSO
on duty on each source vessel at all
times. Work days for an individual PSO
will not exceed 12 hours in duration.
Sufficient numbers of PSOs will be
available and provided to meet
requirements.
Roles and responsibilities of all PSOs
include the following:
• Accurately observe and record
sensitive marine mammal species;
• Follow monitoring and data
collection procedures; and
• Ensure mitigation measures are
followed.
PSOs will be stationed at the best
available vantage point on the source
vessels. PSOs will scan systematically
with the unaided eye and 7x50 reticle
binoculars. As necessary, new PSOs will
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
51009
be paired with experienced PSOs to
ensure that the quality of marine
mammal observations and data
recording are consistent.
All field data collected will be entered
by the end of the day into a custom
database using a notebook computer.
Weather data relative to viewing
conditions will be collected hourly, on
rotation, and when sightings occur and
include the following:
• Sea state;
• Wind speed and direction;
• Sun position; and
• Percent glare.
The following data will be collected
for all marine mammal sightings:
• Bearing and distance to the
sighting;
• Species identification;
• Behavior at the time of sighting
(e.g., travel, spy-hop, breach, etc.);
• Direction and speed relative to
vessel;
• Reaction to activities—changes in
behavior (e.g., none, avoidance,
approach, paralleling, etc.);
• Group size;
• Orientation when sighted (e.g.,
toward, away, parallel, etc.);
• Closest point of approach;
• Sighting cue (e.g., animal, splash,
birds, etc.);
• Physical description of features that
were observed or determined not to be
present in the case of unknown or
unidentified animals;
• Time of sighting;
• Location, speed, and activity of the
source and mitigation vessels, sea state,
ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
positions of other vessel(s) in the
vicinity, and
• Mitigation measure taken—if any.
All observations and shut downs will
be recorded in a standardized format
and data entered into a custom database
using a notebook computer. Accuracy of
all data will be verified daily by the PIC
or designated PSO by a manual
verification. These procedures will
reduce errors, allow the preparation of
short-term data summaries, and
facilitate transfer of the data to
statistical, graphical, or other programs
for further processing and archiving.
PSOs will conduct monitoring during
daylight periods (weather permitting)
during G&G activities, and during most
daylight periods when G&G activities
are temporarily suspended.
Shutdown Procedures
If any marine mammal is seen
approaching the Level A injury zone for
the air gun, chirp, or boomer, these
sources will be shut down. If ESA-listed
marine mammals (e.g., beluga whales)
are observed approaching the Level B
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51010
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
harassment zone for the air gun, chirp,
or boomer, these sources will be shut
down. The PSOs will ensure that the
harassment zone is clear of marine
mammal activity before vibracoring will
occur. Given that vibracoring lasts only
about a minute or two, shutdown
actions are not practicable.
Resuming Airgun Operations After a
Shutdown
A full ramp-up after a shutdown will
not begin until there has been a
minimum of 30 minutes of observation
of the applicable exclusion zone by
PSOs to assure that no marine mammals
are present. The entire exclusion zone
must be visible during the 30-minute
lead-in to a full ramp up. If the entire
exclusion zone is not visible, then rampup from a cold start cannot begin. If a
marine mammal(s) is sighted within the
injury exclusion zone during the 30minute watch prior to ramp-up, rampup will be delayed until the marine
mammal(s) is sighted outside of the
zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for
at least 15–30 minutes: 15 minutes for
small odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g.
harbor porpoises, harbor seals), or 30
minutes for large odontocetes (e.g.,
killer whales and beluga whales).
Speed and Course Alterations
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 survey program. The marine
mammal activities and movements
relative to the sound source 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 or
shut down of the active sound sources
considered in this Authorization.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Mitigation Required by NMFS
Special Procedures for Situations or
Species of Concern
The following additional protective
measures for beluga whales and groups
of five or more killer whales and harbor
porpoises are required. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
until the animals are no longer present
within the 160-dB disturbance zone.
Whenever Cook Inlet 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 boomer, chirp,
and airgun may be powered down
before the animal is within the 160-dB
disturbance zone, as an alternative to a
complete shutdown. If the PSO
determines 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.
Mitigation Exclusion Zones
NMFS requires that EMALL will not
operate the chirp, boomer, vibracore, or
airgun within 10 miles (16 km) of the
mean lower low water (MLLW) 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 will be in effect from April
15th to October 15th annually.
Activities can occur within this area
from October 16th–April 14th.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated
EMALL’s mitigation measures in the
context of ensuring that we prescribe
the means of effecting the least
practicable 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 measure is
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 here:
• Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may
contribute to this goal).
• A reduction in the numbers of
marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) exposed to airgun
operations that we expect to result in
the take of marine mammals (this goal
may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
• A reduction in the number of times
(total number or number at biologically
important time or location) individuals
would be exposed to airgun operations
that we expect to result in the take of
marine mammals (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing
harassment takes only).
• A reduction in the intensity of
exposures (either total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) to airgun operations that we
expect to result in the take of marine
mammals (this goal may contribute to a,
above, or to reducing the severity of
harassment takes only).
• 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.
• 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 the evaluation of EMALL’s
measures, as well as other measures
required by NMFS, NMFS has
determined that the mitigation measures
provide the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance. Measures to ensure
availability of such species or stock for
taking for certain subsistence uses are
discussed later in this document (see
‘‘Impact on Availability of Affected
Species or Stock for Taking for
Subsistence Uses’’ section).
Monitoring and Reporting
Weekly Field Reports
Weekly reports will be submitted to
NMFS no later than the close of
business (Alaska Time) each Thursday
during the weeks when in-water G&G
activities take place. The reports will
cover information collected from
Wednesday of the previous week
through Tuesday of the current week.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
The field reports will summarize
species detected, in-water activity
occurring at the time of the sighting,
behavioral reactions to in-water
activities, and the number of marine
mammals exposed to harassment level
noise.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Monthly Field Reports
Monthly reports will be submitted to
NMFS for all months during which inwater G&G activities take place. The
reports will be submitted to NMFS no
later than five business days after the
end of the month. 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
the G&G Program and marine mammal
sightings.
• Species, number, location, distance
from the vessel, and behavior of any
sighted marine mammals, as well as
associated G&G activity (number of shut
downs), observed throughout all
monitoring activities.
• An estimate of the number (by
species) of: (i) Pinnipeds that have been
exposed to the authorized geophysical
or geotechnical activity (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater
than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
and/or 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a
discussion of any specific behaviors
those individuals exhibited; and (ii)
cetaceans that have been exposed to the
geophysical activity (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater
than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a
discussion of any specific behaviors
those individuals exhibited.
• An estimate of the number (by
species) of pinnipeds and cetaceans that
have been exposed to the geotechnical
activity (based on visual observation) at
received levels greater than or equal to
120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a discussion
of any specific behaviors those
individuals exhibited.
• A description of the
implementation and effectiveness of the:
(i) Terms and conditions of the
Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take
Statement; and (ii) mitigation measures
of the IHA. For the Biological Opinion,
the report shall confirm the
implementation of each Term and
Condition, as well as any conservation
recommendations, and describe their
effectiveness, for minimizing the
adverse effects of the action on ESAlisted marine mammals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
90-Day Technical Report
A report will be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the end of the
project or at least 60 days before the
request for another IHA for the next
open water season to enable NMFS to
incorporate observation data into the
next Authorization. The report will
summarize all activities and monitoring
results (i.e., vessel-based visual
monitoring) conducted during in-water
G&G surveys. The Technical Report will
include the following:
• 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 G&G
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)
estimates of Level B harassment based
on presence in the 120 or 160 dB
harassment zone.
Notification of Injured or Dead Marine
Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity leads to an injury of a
marine mammal (Level A harassment)
or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear
interaction, and/or entanglement),
EMALL would immediately cease the
specified activities and immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, and the
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators
at NMFS. The report would 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
51011
• 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 would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the event. EMALL
would work with NMFS to minimize
reoccurrence of such an event in the
future. The G&G Program would not
resume activities until formally notified
by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the G&G Program
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), the Applicant would
immediately report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding
Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska
Regional Stranding Coordinators. The
report would include the same
information identified in the paragraph
above. Activities would be able to
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with the Applicant to
determine if modifications in the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that the G&G Program
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 IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate
to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), EMALL would
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline
and/or by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours
of the discovery. EMALL would provide
photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51012
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
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].
Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased
underwater sound) generated during the
operation of the airgun or the subbottom profiler have the potential to
result in the behavioral disturbance of
some marine mammals. NMFS believes
that take from the operation of the
vibracore is unlikely but possible and is
issuing take at the request of the
applicant. Thus, NMFS proposes to
authorize take by Level B harassment
resulting from the operation of the
sound sources for the proposed survey
based upon the current acoustic
exposure criteria shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3—NMFS’ CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA
Criterion
Criterion definition
Threshold
Level A Harassment (Injury) ..............................
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) (Any level
above that which is known to cause TTS).
Level B Harassment ..........................................
Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) Behavioral Disruption (for continuous noises).
180 dB re 1 microPa-m (cetaceans)/190 dB re
1 microPa-m (pinnipeds) root mean square
(rms)
160 dB re 1 microPa-m (rms) 120 dB re 1
microPa-m (rms)
NMFS’ practice is to apply the 120 or
160 dB re: 1 mPa received level
threshold (whichever is appropriate) for
underwater impulse sound levels to
determine whether take by Level B
harassment occurs.
All four types of survey equipment
addressed in the application will be
operated from the geophysical source
vessels that will either be moving
steadily across the ocean surface
(chirper, boomer, airgun), or from
station to station (vibracoring). The
numbers of marine mammals that might
be exposed to sound pressure levels
exceeding NMFS Level B harassment
threshold levels due to G&G surveys,
without mitigation, were determined by
multiplying the average raw density for
each species by the daily ensonified
area, and then multiplying that figure by
the number of days each sound source
is estimated to be in use. The chirp and
boomer activities were combined into
one calculation because they will be
operating concurrently, using the daily
ensonified area of the boomer, as it is a
slightly larger isopleth. The exposure
estimates for each activity were then
summed to provide total exposures for
the duration of the project. The
exposure estimates for the activity are
detailed below. Although NMFS
believes that take of marine mammals
from vibracore is extremely unlikely, it
has been included in this authorization
out of an abundance of caution and at
the request of the applicant.
Ensonified Area
The ZOI is the area ensonified by a
particular sound source greater than
threshold levels (120 dB for continuous
and 160 dB for impulsive). The radius
of the ZOI for a particular equipment
was determined by applying the source
sound pressure levels described in
Table 6 of the application to Collins et
al.’s (2007) attenuation model of 18.4
Log(r)¥0.00188 derived from Cook
Inlet. For those equipment generating
loud underwater sound within the
audible hearing range of marine
mammals (<200 kHz), the distance to
threshold ranges between 184 m (604 ft)
and 2.54 km (1.58 mi), with ZOIs
ranging between 0.106 and 20.26 km2
(0.041–7.82 mi2) (Table 4).
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF DISTANCES TO THE NMFS THRESHOLDS AND ASSOCIATED ZOIS
Distance to
160 dB
isopleth 1
m
(ft)
Survey equipment
Sub-bottom Profiler (Chirp) ..............................................................................
Sub-bottom Profiler (Boomer) ..........................................................................
Airgun ...............................................................................................................
Vibracore ..........................................................................................................
1 Calculated
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.54 (1.58)
160 dB
ZOI km2
(mi2)
0.106 (0.041)
0.217 (0.084)
0.283 (0.109)
N/A
120 dB
ZOI
km2
(mi2)
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.26 (7.82)
by applying Collins et al. (2007) spreading formula to source levels in Table 2.
Marine Mammal Densities
Density estimates were derived for
harbor porpoises, killer whales, and
harbor seals from NMFS 2002–2012
Cook Inlet survey data as described
below in Section 6.1.2.1 and shown in
Table 8. The beluga whale exposure
estimates were calculated using density
estimates from Goetz et al. (2012) as
described in Section 6.1.2.2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
184 (604)
263 (863)
300 (984)
N/A
Distance to
120 dB
isopleth 1
km
(mi)
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Harbor Porpoise, Killer Whale, Harbor
Seal
Density estimates were calculated for
all marine mammals (except beluga
whales) by using aerial survey data
collected by NMFS in Cook Inlet
between 2002 and 2012 (Rugh et al.
2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b,
2005c, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al. 2008,
2009, 2010; Hobbs et al. 2011, Shelden
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
et al. 2012) and compiled by Apache,
Inc. (Apache IHA application 2014). To
estimate the average raw densities of
marine mammals, the total number of
animals for each species observed over
the 11-year survey period was divided
by the total area of 65,889 km2 (25,540
mi2) surveyed over the 11 years. The
aerial survey marine mammal sightings,
survey effort (area), and derived average
raw densities are provided in Table 5.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51013
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 5—RAW DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR COOK INLET MARINE MAMMALS BASED ON NMFS AERIAL SURVEYS
Harbor Porpoise .........................................................................................................
Killer Whale 1 .............................................................................................................
Harbor Seal ................................................................................................................
1 Density
NMFS survey
area km 2
(mi 2)
Number of
animals
Species
249
42
16,117
Mean raw density
animals/km 2
(animals/mi 2)
65,889 (25,440)
65,889 (25,440)
65,889 (25,440)
0.0033 (0.0098)
0.0008 (0.0017)
0.28 (0.6335)
is for all killer whales regardless of the stock although all killer whales in the upper Cook Inlet are thought to be transient.
These raw densities were not
corrected for animals missed during the
aerial surveys as no accurate correction
factors are currently available for these
species; however, observer error may be
limited as the NMFS surveyors often
circled marine mammal groups to get an
accurate count of group size. The harbor
seal densities are probably biased
upwards given that a large number of
the animals recorded were of large
groups hauled out at river mouths, and
do not represent the distribution in the
waters where the G&G activity will
actually occur. However, these data are
the most comprehensive available for
Cook Inlet harbor seals and therefore
constitute the best available science.
Beluga Whale
Goetz et al. (2012) modeled aerial
survey data collected by the NMFS
between 1993 and 2008 and developed
specific beluga summer densities for
each 1-km2 cell of Cook Inlet. The
results provide a more precise estimate
of beluga density at a given location
than simply multiplying all aerial
observations by the total survey effort
given the clumped distribution of
beluga whales during the summer
months. To develop a density estimate
associated with planned action areas
(i.e., Marine Terminal and pipeline
survey areas), the ensonified area
associated with each activity was
overlain a map of the 1-km density cells,
the cells falling within each ensonified
area were quantified, and an average
cell density was calculated. The
summary of the density results is found
in Table 9 in the application. The
associated ensonified areas and beluga
density contours relative to the action
areas are shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6—MEAN RAW DENSITIES OF BELUGA WHALES WITHIN THE ACTION AREAS BASED ON GOETZ et al. (2012) COOK
INLET BELUGA WHALE DISTRIBUTION MODELING
Action area
Marine Terminal Survey Area ..............................................................................
Pipeline Survey Area ...........................................................................................
Activity Duration
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program is
expected to require approximately 12
weeks (84 days) to complete. During
approximately 63 of these days, the
chirp and boomer sub-bottom profiler
will produce the loudest sound levels.
Airgun use will occur during
approximately 7 days and will occur
only near the proposed Marine
Terminal. The airgun activity will occur
during the summer when beluga whale
use of Cook Inlet is primarily
concentrated near the Susitna Delta,
approximately 65 km (40 mi) north of
the airgun survey area. Vibracoring,
with its large ZOI, will occur
Mean density
(animals/km2)
Number of cells
386
571
intermittently over approximately 14
days. The applicant provided an
estimate of 50 miles per day that the
survey vessel could travel.
Exposure Calculations
The numbers of marine mammals that
might be exposed to sound pressure
levels exceeding NMFS Level B
harassment threshold levels due to G&G
surveys, without mitigation, were
determined by multiplying the average
raw density for each species by the daily
ensonified area, then multiplying by the
number of days each sound source is
estimated to be in use. While this
method produces a good estimate of the
Density range
(animals/km2)
0.000166
0.011552
0.000021–0.001512
0.000275–0.156718
number of instances of take, it is likely
an overestimate of the number of
individual marine mammals taken
because it assumes that entirely new
individuals are taken on subsequent
days and that no animals are taken more
than once. The chirp and boomer
activities were combined to calculate
exposure from days of activities in the
Upper Cook Inlet area and the Lower
Cook Inlet area because they will be
operating concurrently. The exposure
estimates for each activity were then
summed to provide total exposures for
the duration of the project. The
exposure estimates for the activity are
detailed below.
TABLE 7—EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR ACTIVITY
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Species
Density
Beluga ........................
Killer whale .................
Harbor seal ................
Harbor porpoise .........
Boomer—
Upper
0.0012 .00017
0.00082
0.28
0.0033
18.18
1.29
444.52
5.18
NMFS recognizes that in addition to
what was mentioned above, there are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Boomer—
Lower
0.18
0.91
312.37
3.64
Vibracore—
Upper
Airgun
0.056
0.28
95.99
1.12
Vibracore—
Lower
5.15
0.37
125.92
1.47
0.11
0.55
188.89
2.20
other factors that contribute to an
overestimate of exposures,, e.g., the fact
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Total
23.69
3.39
1,167.68
13.60
Authorization
24
5
1,168
20
that many of these technologies will be
operating simultaneously, and not
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51014
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
exposing animals in separate instances
for the duration of the survey period.
Additionally, the beamwidth and tilt
angle of the sub-bottom profiler are not
factored into the characterization of the
sound field, making it conservative and
large, creating additional overestimates
in take estimation.
The possibility of Level A exposure
was analyzed, however the distances to
180 dB/190 dB isopleths are incredibly
small, ranging from 0 to 26 meters. The
number of exposures, without
accounting for mitigation or likely
avoidance of louder sounds, is small for
these zones, and with mitigation and the
likelihood of detecting marine mammals
within this small area combined with
the likelihood of avoidance, it is likely
these takes can be avoided. The only
technology that would not shutdown is
the vibracore, which has a distance to
Level A isopleth (180 dB) of 3 meters.
Therefore, authorization of Level A take
is not necessary.
NMFS will authorize the following
takes by Level B harassment:
TABLE 8—AUTHORIZATIONS
Exposure
estimate
Species
Beluga ..................................................................................
Killer whale ...........................................................................
Harbor seal ...........................................................................
Harbor porpoise ....................................................................
Analysis and Determinations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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). The lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., population
level effects) forms the basis of a
negligible impact finding. Thus, an
estimate of the number of takes, alone,
is not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In
addition to considering estimates of the
number of marine mammals that might
be ‘‘taken’’ through 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,
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.
To avoid repetition, except where
otherwise identified, the discussion of
our analyses applies to all the species
listed in Table 8, given that the
anticipated effects of this project on
marine mammals are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. Where there
is information about specific impacts to,
or about the size, status, or structure of,
any species or stock that would lead to
a different analysis for this activity,
species-specific factors are identified
and analyzed.
In making a negligible impact
determination, NMFS considers:
• The number of anticipated injuries,
serious injuries, or mortalities;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Take
authorized
23.69
3.39
1,167.68
13.60
24
5
1,168
20
Percent of stock or
population
7.06 .............................
1.44 transient ..............
5.10 .............................
0.064 ...........................
• The number, nature, and intensity,
and duration of Level B harassment; and
• The context in which the takes
occur (e.g., impacts to areas of
significance, impacts to local
populations, and cumulative impacts
when taking into account successive/
contemporaneous actions when added
to baseline data);
• The status of stock or species of
marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not
depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable,
impact relative to the size of the
population);
• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of
recruitment/survival; and
• The effectiveness of monitoring and
mitigation measures to reduce the
number or severity of incidental take.
As discussed in the Potential Effects
section, temporary or permanent
threshold shift, non-auditory physical or
physiological effects, ship strike,
entanglement are not expected to occur.
Given the required mitigation and
related monitoring, no injuries or
mortalities are anticipated to occur to
any species as a result of EMALL’s
proposed survey in Cook Inlet, and none
are authorized. Animals in the area are
not expected to incur hearing
impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or nonauditory physiological effects due to
low source levels and the fact that most
marine mammals would more likely
avoid a loud sound source rather than
swim in such close proximity as to
result in TTS or PTS. The most likely
effect from the proposed action is
localized, short-term behavioral
disturbance from active acoustic
sources. The number of takes that are
anticipated and authorized are expected
to be limited to short-term Level B
behavioral harassment for all stocks for
which take is authorized. This is largely
due to the short time scale of the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Population trend
Decreasing.
Transient—Stable.
Stable.
No reliable info.
proposed activity, the low source levels
for many of the technologies proposed
to be used, as well as the required
mitigation. The technologies do not
operate continuously over a 24-hour
period. Rather, airguns are operational
for a few hours at a time for 7 days, with
the sub-bottom profiler chirp and
boomer operating for 63 days, and the
vibracore operating over 14 days.
The addition of five vessels, and noise
due to vessel operations associated with
the survey, would not be outside the
present experience of marine mammals
in Cook Inlet, although levels may
increase locally. 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.
Taking into account the mitigation
measures that are planned, effects on
cetaceans are generally expected to be
restricted to avoidance of a limited area
around the survey operation and shortterm changes in behavior, falling within
the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B
harassment.’’ Shut-downs are required
for belugas and groups of killer whales
or harbor porpoises when they approach
the 160dB disturbance zone, to further
reduce potential impacts to these
populations. Visual observation by
trained PSOs is also implemented to
reduce the impact of the proposed
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
activity by informing operators of
marine mammals approaching the
relevant disturbance or injury zones.
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.
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. This
information supports the idea that the
numerated takes for odonotocetes are
likely on the lower end of severity in the
terms of responses that rise to the level
of a take.
Beluga Whales
Cook Inlet beluga whales are listed as
endangered under the ESA. This stock
is 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.
The authorization of take by Level B
harassment of 24 Cook Inlet beluga
whales represents 7.06 percent of the
population.
Belugas in the Canadian Beaufort Sea
in summer appear to be fairly
responsive to seismic energy, with few
being sighted within 10–20 km (6–12
mi) of seismic vessels during aerial
surveys (Miller et al., 2005). However,
as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are
more accustomed to anthropogenic
sound than beluga whales in the
Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the results from
the Beaufort Sea surveys do not directly
translate to potential reactions of Cook
Inlet beluga whales. Also, due to the
dispersed distribution of beluga whales
in Cook Inlet during winter and the
concentration of beluga whales in upper
Cook Inlet from late April through early
fall, belugas would likely occur in small
numbers in the majority of EMALL’s
proposed survey area during the
majority of EMALL’s annual operational
timeframe of August through December.
For the same reason, as well as the
mitigation measure that requires
shutting down for belugas seen
approaching the 160dB disturbance
zone, and the likelihood of avoidance at
high levels, it is unlikely that animals
would be exposed to received levels
capable of causing injury.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 from
the two source vessels, tug and jack-up
rig and associated vessel noise is not
expected to have effects that could
cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine
mammals or their populations, given
that vessels will operate for a maximum
of 84 days.
In addition, NMFS has seasonally
restricted survey operations in the area
known to be important for beluga whale
feeding, calving, or nursing. The
primary location for these biological life
functions occurs in the Susitna Delta
region of upper Cook Inlet. NMFS
required EMALL to implement a 16 km
(10 mi) seasonal exclusion from survey
operations in this region from April 15October 15. The highest concentrations
of belugas are typically found in this
area from early May through September
each year. NMFS has incorporated a 2week buffer on each end of this seasonal
use timeframe to account for any
anomalies in distribution and marine
mammal usage.
Killer Whales
The authorization of take by Level B
harassment of 5 killer whales represents
only 1.44 percent of the population.
Killer whales are not encountered as
frequently in Cook Inlet as some of the
other species in this analysis, however
when sighted they are usually in groups.
The addition of a mitigation measure to
shutdown if a group of 5 or more killer
whales is seen approaching the 160 dB
zone is intended to minimize any
impact to an aggregation of killer whales
if encountered. The killer whales in the
survey area are also thought to be
transient killer whales and therefore
rely on the habitat in the EMALL survey
area less than other resident species.
Harbor Porpoise
The authorization of take by Level B
harassment for 20 harbor porpoises
represents only 0.064 percent of the
population. Harbor porpoises are among
the most sensitive marine mammal
species with regard to behavioral
response and anthropogenic noise. They
are known to exhibit behavioral
responses to operation of seismic
airguns, pingers, and other technologies
at low thresholds. However, they are
abundant in Cook Inlet and therefore the
authorized take is unlikely to affect
recruitment or status of the population
in any way. In addition, mitigation
measures include shutdowns for groups
of more than 5 harbor porpoises that
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
51015
will minimize the amount of take to the
local harbor porpoise population. This
mitigation as well as the short duration
and low source levels of the proposed
activity will reduce the impact to the
harbor porpoises found in Cook Inlet.
Harbor Seal
The authorization of take by Level B
harassment for 1,168 harbor seals
represents only 5.1% of a stable
population. Observations during other
anthropogenic activities in Cook Inlet
have reported large congregations of
harbor seals hauling out in upper Cook
Inlet. However, mitigation measures,
such as vessel speed, course alteration,
and visual monitoring, and time-area
restrictions will be implemented to help
reduce impacts to the animals.
Additionally, this activity does not
encompass a large number of known
harbor seal haulouts, particularly as this
activity proposes operations traversing
across the Inlet, as opposed to entirely
nearshore activities. While some harbor
seals will likely be exposed, the
required mitigation along with their
smaller aggregations in water than on
shore should minimize impacts to the
harbor seal population. Additionally,
the short duration of the survey, and the
use of visual observers to inform
shutdowns and ramp up delays should
further reduce the severity of behavioral
reactions to Cook Inlet harbor seals.
Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to
sounds produced by this phase of
EMALL’s proposed survey is not
anticipated to have an effect on annual
rates of recruitment or survival on those
species or stocks.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
required monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total
annual marine mammal take from
EMALL’s proposed survey will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine
mammal species or stocks (see Table 8).
Although NMFS believes it is unlikely
the operation of the vibracore would
result in the take of marine mammals
and did not propose to authorize take by
vibracore in the Federal Register notice
of the proposed Authorization, we note
here that take from vibracoring activities
has been included in the Final
Authorization out of an abundance of
caution and at the request of the
applicant. Take by Level B harassment
from vibracoring accounts for
approximately 25 percent of the take
authorized for the entire survey, ranging
from 0.9 killer whales to 313 harbor
seals. The vibracoring activity is
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51016
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
proposed to occur at 55 locations across
the Inlet from the Forelands, north to
the upper end of Cook Inlet. However,
the actual noise-producing activity will
only occur for only 90 seconds at a time,
during which PSOs will be observing for
marine mammals. The limited scope
and duration of vibracoring makes it
extremely unlikely that take by Level B
harassment would occur during the
vibracore portion of the operation.
Nonetheless, we included the potential
take from vibracore in our analysis
above, and as we indicated, we found
that there would be a negligible impact
on the affect species or stocks from the
total takes, including any that are
authorized for vibracore.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Small Numbers Analysis
The requested takes authorized
annually represent 7.06 percent of the
Cook Inlet beluga whale population of
approximately 340 animals (Allen and
Angliss, 2014), 1.44 percent of the Gulf
of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering
Sea stock of killer whales (345
transients), and 0.064 percent of the
Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately
31,046 harbor porpoises. The take
requests presented for harbor seals
represent 5.02 percent of the Cook Inlet/
Shelikof stock of approximately 22,900
animals. These take estimates represent
small numbers relative to the affected
species or stock sizes as shown in Table
8.
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
EMALL’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 are not common in the survey
area; (3) the required mitigation
requirements, which provide spatiotemporal limitations that avoid impacts
to large numbers of belugas feeding and
calving in the Susitna Delta; (4) the
required monitoring requirements and
mitigation measures described earlier in
this document for all marine mammal
species that will reduce the amount of
takes; and (5) monitoring results from
previous activities that indicated low
numbers of beluga whale sightings
within the Level B disturbance
exclusion zone and low levels of Level
B harassment takes of other marine
mammals. Therefore, NMFS determined
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
that the numbers of animals likely to be
taken are small.
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
Relevant Subsistence Uses
The subsistence harvest of marine
mammals transcends the nutritional and
economic values attributed to the
animal and is an integral part of the
cultural identity of the region’s Alaska
Native communities. Inedible parts of
the whale provide Native artisans with
materials for cultural handicrafts, and
the hunting itself perpetuates Native
traditions by transmitting traditional
skills and knowledge to younger
generations (NOAA, 2007).
The Cook Inlet beluga whale has
traditionally been hunted by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes. For
several decades prior to the 1980s, the
Native Village of Tyonek residents were
the primary subsistence hunters of Cook
Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s
and 1990s, Alaska Natives from villages
in the western, northwestern, and North
Slope regions of Alaska either moved to
or visited the south central region and
participated in the yearly subsistence
harvest (Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to
1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per
year (range 21–123) were taken in this
harvest, including those successfully
taken for food and those struck and lost.
NMFS concluded that this number was
high enough to account for the
estimated 14 percent annual decline in
the population during this time (Hobbs
et al., 2008). Actual mortality may have
been higher, given the difficulty of
estimating the number of whales struck
and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a
moratorium was enacted (Pub. L. 106–
31) prohibiting the subsistence take of
Cook Inlet beluga whales except through
a cooperative agreement between NMFS
and the affected Alaska Native
organizations. Since the Cook Inlet
beluga whale harvest was regulated in
1999 requiring cooperative agreements,
five beluga whales have been struck and
harvested. Those beluga whales were
harvested in 2001 (one animal), 2002
(one animal), 2003 (one animal), and
2005 (two animals). The Native Village
of Tyonek agreed not to hunt or request
a hunt in 2007, when no comanagement agreement was to be signed
(NMFS, 2008a).
On October 15, 2008, NMFS
published a final rule that established
long-term harvest limits on Cook Inlet
beluga whales that may be taken by
Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes
(73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits
harvest for a 5-year interval period if the
average stock abundance of Cook Inlet
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
beluga whales over the prior five-year
interval is below 350 whales. Harvest
levels for the current 5-year planning
interval (2013–2017) are zero because
the average stock abundance for the
previous five-year period (2008–2012)
was below 350 whales. Based on the
average abundance over the 2002–2007
period, no hunt occurred between 2008
and 2012 (NMFS, 2008a). The Cook
Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which
managed the Alaska Native Subsistence
fishery with NMFS, was disbanded by a
unanimous vote of the Tribes’
representatives on June 20, 2012. At this
time, no harvest is expected in 2015 or,
likely, in 2016.
Data on the harvest of other marine
mammals in Cook Inlet are lacking.
Some data are available on the
subsistence harvest of harbor seals,
harbor porpoises, and killer whales in
Alaska in the marine mammal stock
assessments. However, these numbers
are for the Gulf of Alaska including
Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative
of the harvest in Cook Inlet.
There is a low level of subsistence
hunting for harbor seals in Cook Inlet.
Seal hunting occurs opportunistically
among Alaska Natives who may be
fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet
near the mouths of the Susitna River,
Beluga River, and Little Susitna. Some
detailed information on the subsistence
harvest of harbor seals is available from
past studies conducted by the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (Wolfe et
al., 2009). In 2008, 33 harbor seals were
taken for harvest in the Upper KenaiCook Inlet area. In the same study,
reports from hunters stated that harbor
seal populations in the area were
increasing (28.6%) or remaining stable
(71.4%). The specific hunting regions
identified were Anchorage, Homer,
Kenai, and Tyonek, and hunting
generally peaks in March, September,
and November (Wolfe et al., 2009).
Potential Impacts on Availability for
Subsistence Uses
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires
NMFS to determine that the taking will
not have an unmitigable adverse effect
on the availability of marine mammal
species or stocks for subsistence use.
NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable adverse
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability
of the species to a level insufficient for
a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
(i) Causing the marine mammals to
abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii)
Directly displacing subsistence users; or
(iii) Placing physical barriers between
the marine mammals and the
subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 survey. Marine mammals
could be behaviorally harassed and
either become more difficult to hunt or
temporarily abandon traditional hunting
grounds. However, the proposed survey
will not have any impacts to beluga
harvests as none currently occur in
Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence
harvests of other marine mammal
species are limited in Cook Inlet.
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To
Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts
The entire upper Cook unit and a
portion of the lower Cook unit falls
north of 60° N., or within the region
NMFS has designated as an Arctic
subsistence use area. EMALL provided
detailed information in Section 8 of
their application regarding their plan to
cooperate with local subsistence users
and stakeholders regarding the potential
effects of their proposed activity. There
are several villages in EMALL’s
proposed project area that have
traditionally hunted marine mammals,
primarily harbor seals. Tyonek is the
only tribal village in upper Cook Inlet
with a tradition of hunting marine
mammals, in this case harbor seals and
beluga whales. However, for either
species the annual recorded harvest
since the 1980s has averaged about one
or fewer of either species (Fall et al.
1984, Wolfe et al. 2009, SRBA and HC
2011), and there is currently a
moratorium on subsistence harvest of
belugas. Further, many of the seals that
are harvested are done incidentally to
salmon fishing or moose hunting (Fall et
al. 1984, Merrill and Orpheim 2013),
often near the mouths of the Susitna
Delta rivers (Fall et al. 1984) north of
EMALL’s proposed seismic survey area.
Villages in lower Cook Inlet adjacent
to EMALL’s proposed survey area
(Kenai, Salamatof, and Nikiski) have
either not traditionally hunted beluga
whales, or at least not in recent years,
and rarely do they harvest sea lions.
These villages more commonly harvest
harbor seals, with Kenai reporting an
average of about 13 per year between
1992 and 2008 (Wolfe et al. 2009).
According to Fall et al. (1984), many of
the seals harvested by hunters from
these villages were taken on the west
side of the inlet during hunting
excursions for moose and black bears.
Although marine mammals remain an
important subsistence resource in Cook
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Inlet, the number of animals annually
harvested is low, and are primarily
harbor seals. Much of the harbor seal
harvest occurs incidental to other
fishing and hunting activities, and at
areas outside of the EMALL’s proposed
survey areas such as the Susitna Delta
or the west side of lower Cook Inlet.
Also, EMALL is unlikely to conduct
activity in the vicinity of any of the river
mouths where large numbers of seals
haul out.
EMALL and NMFS recognize the
importance of ensuring that Alaska
Natives and federally recognized tribes
are informed, engaged, and involved
during the permitting process and will
continue to work with the Alaska
Natives and tribes to discuss operations
and activities.
Prior to offshore activities EMALL
was to consult with nearby communities
such as Tyonek, Salamatof, and the
Kenaitze Indian Tribe to attend and
present the program description prior to
operations within those areas. These
meetings were conducted and no issues
related to subsistence use of marine
mammals was raised.
If a conflict does occur with project
activities involving subsistence or
fishing, the project manager will
immediately contact the affected party
to resolve the conflict.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
The project will not have any effect
on beluga whale harvests because no
beluga harvest will take place in 2015.
Additionally, the proposed seismic
survey area is not an important native
subsistence site for other subsistence
species of marine mammals thus, the
number harvested is expected to be
extremely low. The timing and location
of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet
harbor seals may coincide with
EMALL’s project, but because this
subsistence hunt is conducted
opportunistically and at such a low
level (NMFS, 2013c), EMALL’s program
is not expected to have an impact on the
subsistence use of harbor seals.
Moreover, the proposed survey would
result in only temporary disturbances.
Accordingly, the specified activity
would not impact the availability of
these other marine mammal species for
subsistence uses.
NMFS anticipates that any effects
from EMALL’s proposed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
51017
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 required mitigation
and monitoring measures, NMFS has
determined that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from EMALL’s
proposed activities.
Endangered Species Act
There is one marine mammal species
listed as endangered under the ESA
with confirmed or possible occurrence
in the project area: The Cook Inlet
beluga whale. In addition, the action
could occur within 10 miles of
designated critical habitat for the Cook
Inlet beluga whale. NMFS’s Permits and
Conservation Division has initiated
consultation with NMFS’ Alaska Region
Protected Resources Division under
section 7 of the ESA. This consultation
concluded on August 13, 2015, when a
Biological Opinion was issued. The
Biological Opinion determined that the
issuance of an IHA is not likely to
jeapordize the continued existence of
the Cook Inlet beluga whales or destroy
or adversely modify Cook Inlet beluga
whale critical habitat. Finally, the
Alaska region issued an Incidental Take
Statement (ITS) for Cook Inlet beluga
whales. The ITS contains reasonable
and prudent measures implemented by
the terms and conditions to minimize
the effect of this take.
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS prepared an EA that includes
an analysis of potential environmental
effects associated with NMFS’ issuance
of an IHA to EMALL to take marine
mammals incidental to conducting a
geophysical and geotechnical survey
program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS
has finalized the EA and prepared a
Finding of No Significant Impact for this
action. Therefore, preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement is not
necessary.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
51018
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices
Authorization
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
As a result of these determinations,
NMFS has issued an IHA to Exxon
Mobil Alaska LNG LLC (EMALL) for
taking marine mammals incidental to a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Aug 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
geophysical and geotechnical survey in
Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
PO 00000
Dated: August 17, 2015.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–20605 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM
21AUN2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50989-51018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20605]
[[Page 50989]]
Vol. 80
Friday,
No. 162
August 21, 2015
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in
Cook Inlet, Alaska; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 /
Notices
[[Page 50990]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE018
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey
in Cook Inlet, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing an Authorization in response to a request from
ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC (EMALL) for an authorization to take marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to a geophysical and geotechnical
survey in Cook Inlet, AK, for 84 days between August 14, 2015 and
August 13, 2016.
DATES: Effective August 14, 2015, through August 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Incidental Harrassment
Authorization (IHA; Authorization), application, and associated
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) may be obtained by writing to Jolie Harrison, Division Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, 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
notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Young, 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.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].
Summary of Request
On February 4, 2015, NMFS received an application from EMALL for
the taking of marine mammals incidental to a geotechnical and
geophysical survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS determined that the
application was adequate and complete on June 8, 2015.
EMALL proposes to conduct a geophysical and geotechnical survey in
Cook Inlet to investigate the technical suitability of a pipeline study
corridor across Cook Inlet and potential marine terminal locations near
Nikiski. The proposed activity would occur for 12 weeks during the 2015
open water season after August 14, 2015. The following specific aspects
of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine
mammals: Use of a seismic airgun, sub-bottom profiler (chirp and
boomer), and potentially a vibracore. Take, by Level B Harassment only,
of individuals of four species of marine mammals is anticipated to
result from the specified activities.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The planned geophysical surveys involve remote sensors including
single beam echo sounder, multibeam echo sounder, sub-bottom profiler
(chirp and boomer), 0.983 L (60 in\3\) airgun, side scan sonar,
geophysical resistivity meters, and magnetometer to characterize the
bottom surface and subsurface. The planned shallow geotechnical
investigations include vibracoring, sediment grab sampling, and piezo-
cone penetration testing (PCPT) to directly evaluate seabed features
and soil conditions. Geotechnical borings are planned at potential
shoreline crossings and in the terminal boring subarea within the
Marine Terminal survey area, and will be used to collect information on
the mechanical properties of in-situ soils to support feasibility
studies for construction crossing techniques and decisions on siting
and design of pilings, dolphins, and other marine structures.
Geophysical resistivity imaging will be conducted at the potential
shoreline crossings. Shear wave velocity profiles (downhole geophysics)
will be conducted within some of the boreholes. Further details of the
planned operations are provided below.
Dates and Duration
Geophysical and geotechnical (G&G) surveys that do not involve
equipment that could acoustically harass listed marine mammals began in
May 2015. These surveys include echo sounders and side scan sonar
surveys operating at frequencies above the hearing range of local
marine mammals and geotechnical borings, which are not expected to
produce underwater noise exceeding ambient. The remaining surveys,
including use of sub-bottom profilers and the small airgun, will begin
soon after receipt of the IHA. These activities would be scheduled in
such a manner as to minimize potential effects to marine mammals,
subsistence activities, and other users of Cook Inlet waters. It is
expected that approximately 12 weeks (84 work days) are required to
complete the G&G Program. The work days would not all be consecutive
due to weather, rest days, and any timing restrictions.
Specified Geographic Region
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program will include geophysical surveys,
shallow geotechnical investigations, and geotechnical borings. Two
separate areas will be investigated and are shown in Figure 1 of the
application: The pipeline survey area and the Marine Terminal survey
area (which includes an LNG carrier approach zone). The pipeline survey
area runs from the Kenai Peninsula, across the Inlet, up to Beluga,
also considered the Upper Inlet. The Terminal area will include an area
west and south of Nikiski, the northern edge of what is considered the
Lower
[[Page 50991]]
Inlet. The G&G Program survey areas (also referred to as the action
area or action areas) are larger than the proposed pipeline route and
the Marine Terminal site to ensure detection of all potential hazards,
or to identify areas free of hazards. This provides siting flexibility
should the pipeline corridor or Marine Terminal sites need to be
adjusted to avoid existing hazards.
Pipeline Survey Area--The proposed pipeline survey area
(Figure 1) crosses Cook Inlet from Boulder Point on the Kenai Peninsula
across to Shorty Creek about halfway between the village of Tyonek and
the Beluga River. This survey area is approximately 45 km (28 mi) in
length along the corridor centerline and averages about 13 km (8 mi)
wide. The total survey area is 541 km2 (209 mi2). The pipeline survey
area includes a subarea where vibracores will be conducted in addition
to the geophysical surveys and shallow geotechnical investigations.
Marine Terminal Survey Area--The proposed Marine Terminal
survey area (Figure 1), encompassing 371 km2 (143 mi2), is located near
Nikiski where potential sites and vessel routes for the Marine Terminal
are being investigated. The Marine Terminal survey area includes two
subareas: A seismic survey subarea where the airgun will be operated in
addition to the other geophysical equipment, and a terminal boring
subarea where geotechnical boreholes will be drilled in addition to the
geophysical survey and shallow geotechnical investigations. The seismic
survey subarea encompasses 25 km2 (8.5 mi2) and the terminal boring
subarea encompasses 12 km2 (4.6 mi2).
Detailed Description of Activities
The Notice of Proposed IHA (80 FR 37465, June 30, 2015) contains a
full detailed description of the geotechnical and geophysical survey,
including the sources proposed to be used and vessel details. That
information has not changed and is therefore not repeated here.
Comments and Responses
A Notice of Proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on
June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37465) for public comment. During the 30-day
public comment period, NMFS received four comment letters from the
following: The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC); the Natural Resource
Defense Counsel (NRDC); Friends of Animals (FOA); and one private
citizen.
All of the public comment letters received on the Notice of
Proposed IHA (80 FR 37465, June 30, 2015) are available on the internet
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Following is a
summary of the public comments and NMFS' responses.
Comment 1: One private citizen requested that we deny issuance of
the IHA because marine mammals would be killed as a result of the
survey.
Response: The survey is not expected to result in the death of any
marine mammal species, and no such take is authorized. Extensive
analysis of the proposed geotechnical and geophysical survey was
conducted in accordance with the MMPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA),
and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to those
statutes, we analyzed the impacts of the survey activities to marine
mammals (including those listed as threatened or endangered under the
ESA), their habitat (including critical habitat designated under the
ESA), and to the availability of marine mammals for taking for
subsistence uses. The MMPA analysis revealed that the activities would
have a negligible impact on affected marine mammal species or stocks
and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses. The ESA analysis
concluded that the activities likely would not jeopardize the continued
existence of ESA-listed species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. The NEPA analysis concluded that there
would not be a significant impact on the human environment.
Comment 2: The MMC and the NRDC recommend that NMFS defer issuance
of any Authorization to EMALL or other applicants until NMFS concludes
that those activities would affect no more than a small number of Cook
Inlet beluga whales with a negligible impact on the population.
Response: In accordance with our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
216.104(c), we use the best available scientific information to
determine whether the taking by the specified activity within the
specified geographic region will have a negligible impact on the
species or stock and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses. Based on
the best scientific information available, NMFS determined that the
impacts of the geotechnical and geophysical survey program, which are
primarily acoustic in nature, would meet these standards. Moreover,
EMALL proposed and NMFS has required in the IHA a rigorous mitigation
plan to reduce impacts to Cook Inlet beluga whales and other marine
mammals to the lowest level practicable, including measures to shutdown
active acoustic sources if any beluga whale is observed approaching or
within the Level B harassment zone and restricting activities within a
10 mi (16 km) radius of the Susitna Delta from April 15 through October
15, which is an important area for beluga feeding and calving in the
spring and summer months. This shutdown measure is more restrictive
than the standard shutdown measures typically applied, and combined
with the Susitna Delta exclusion (minimizing adverse effects to
foraging), is expected to reduce both the scope and severity of
potential harassment takes, minimizing impacts from the harassment that
would adversely affect reproductive rates or survivorship.
Our analysis indicates that issuance of this IHA will not
contribute to or worsen the observed decline of the Cook Inlet beluga
whale population. Additionally, the ESA Biological Opinion determined
that the issuance of an IHA is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Cook Inlet beluga whales or adversely modify Cook
Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. The Biological Opinion also
outlined Terms and Conditions and Reasonable and Prudent Measures to
reduce impacts, which have been incorporated into the IHA. Therefore,
based on the analysis of potential effects, the parameters of the
survey, and the rigorous mitigation and monitoring program, NMFS
determined that the activity would have a negligible impact on the
population.
Moreover, the survey would take by Level B harrassment only small
numbers of marine mammals relative to their population sizes. As
described in the proposed IHA Federal Register notice, NMFS used a
method that incorporates density of marine mammals overlaid with the
anticipated ensonified area and the number of days of the operation to
calculate an estimated number of takes for belugas. The number of
belugas likely to be taken represents 7.04% of the population, which
NMFS considers small. In addition to this quantitative evaluation, NMFS
has 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 EMALL's activity, as
most animals are concentrated in upper Cook Inlet; and (2) the
mitigation requirements, which provide spatio-temporal limitations that
avoid impacts to large numbers of animals feeding and
[[Page 50992]]
calving in the Susitna Delta and limit exposures to sound levels
associated with Level B harassment. Based on all of this information,
NMFS determined that the number of beluga whales likely to be taken is
small. See response to Comment 3 and our small numbers analysis later
in this document for more information about the small numbers
determination for beluga whales and the other marine mammal species.
Comment 3: The MMC recommends that before issuing any
Authorizations, NMFS develop clear criteria for determining what
constitutes small numbers and negligible impact for the purpose of
authorizing incidental take of marine mammals.
Response: NMFS consistently assesses clearly articulated factors in
making both the small numbers and negligible impact findings in our
actions, and those findings are supported for this action as described
in this notice. However, we are currently assessing our criteria for
determining what constitutes ``small numbers'' and are working towards
the development of an improved, and more quantitative, analytical
framework for determining whether an activity will have a ``negligible
impact'' for the purpose of authorizing takes of marine mammals. We
fully intend to engage the MMC in these processes at the appropriate
time.
Comment 4: The MMC and NRDC recommend that NMFS finalize and
implement the beluga whale recovery plan, issue its programmatic EIS,
and establish annual limits on the types of takes authorized for sound-
producing activities in Cook Inlet before issuing additional
Authorizations.
Response: NMFS recognizes the release of the draft recovery plan
and, as an agency, will address and implement appropriate
recommendations made in the recovery plan when the draft becomes a
Final Recovery Plan, after NMFS has been able to incorporate public
comment on the draft version.
Further, NMFS is making progress toward the development of the Cook
Inlet EIS to analyze the environmental impacts of issuing Incidental
Take Authorizations (ITAs) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to anthropogenic
activities in the waters of Cook Inlet, AK, but in the meanwhile is
also requesting that all Cook Inlet applicants requesting
authorizations for the 2016 open water season send in their
applications by October 1, 2015. This will enable NMFS to conduct a
Programmatic EA for these activities and better analyze the cumulative
effects from all of the authorizations proposed for each open water
season until the EIS is complete.
Comment 5: The MMC, NRDC, and FOA commented on an error in beluga
density information used to estimate the number of beluga exposures in
the proposed authorization. The MMC and NRDC recommend that NMFS
provide public notice of the revised number of beluga whale takes that
NMFS proposes to authorize along with a revised analysis.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the error in beluga density information
and has revised the calculations used for take estimation presented in
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA. The correction
results in a revised exposure estimate of 30 belugas. However,
following discussions with the applicant, the MMC, and the Alaska
Regional Office, NMFS has determined that exposures due to the chirp
will not be included in the Authorization, as the chirp and the boomer
will be operating concurrently and the 160-dB isopleth of the boomer is
larger than that of the chirp. Therefore, NMFS is authorizing take by
Level B harrassment of only 24 belugas. This new exposure estimate
represents 7.06% of the population, whereas the original estimate of 14
represented 4.12% of the population. This difference does not
substantively affect NMFS' analysis of effects, nor does it change the
small numbers or negligible impact determinations, and therefore it
does not merit a second public comment period.
Comment 6: The MMC and NRDC recommend that until behavior
thresholds are updated, that NMFS require applicants to use the 120-dB
rather than 160-dB threshold for sub-bottom profilers.
Response: The 120-dB threshold is typically associated with
continuous sources. Continuous sounds are those whose sound pressure
level remains above that of the ambient sound, with negligibly small
fluctuations in level (NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005). Intermittent sounds
are defined as sounds with interrupted levels of low or no sound
(NIOSH, 1998). Sub-bottom profiler signals are intermittent sounds.
Intermittent sounds can further be defined as either impulsive or non-
impulsive. Impulsive sounds have been defined as sounds which are
typically transient, brief (<1 sec), broadband, and consist of a high
peak pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH,
1998). Non-impulsive sounds typically have more gradual rise times and
longer decays (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Sub-bottom profiler signals
have durations that are typically very brief (<1 sec), with temporal
characteristics that more closely resemble those of impulsive sounds
than non-impulsive sounds. With regard to behavioral thresholds, we
therefore consider the temporal and spectral characteristics of sub-
bottom profiler signals to more closely resemble those of an impulse
sound rather than a continuous sound. The 160-dB threshold is typically
associated with impulsive sources.
The MMC suggests that, for certain sources considered here, the
interval between pulses is so small it should be considered continuous.
However, a sub-bottom profiler chirp's ``rapid staccato'' of pulse
trains is emitted in a similar fashion as odontocete echolocation click
trains. Research indicates that marine mammals, in general, have
extremely fine auditory temporal resolution and can detect each signal
separately (e.g., Au et al., 1988; Dolphin et al., 1995; Supin and
Popov, 1995; Mooney et al., 2009), especially for species with
echolocation capabilities. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that marine
mammals would perceive sub-bottom profiler signals as being continuous.
In conclusion, sub-bottom profiler signals are intermittent rather
than continuous signals, and the fine temporal resolution of the marine
mammal auditory system allows them to perceive these sounds as such.
Further, the physical characteristics of these signals indicate a
greater similarity to the way that intermittent, impulsive sounds are
received. Therefore, the 160-dB threshold (typically associated with
impulsive sources) is more appropriate than the 120-dB threshold
(typically associated with continuous sources) for estimating takes by
behavioral harassment incidental to use of such sources.
We agree with the MMC'c recommendation to revise existing acoustic
criteria and thresholds as necessary to specify threshold levels that
would be more appropriate for a wider range of sound sources, and are
currently in the process of producing such revisions. In particular,
NMFS recognizes the importance of context (e.g., behavioral state of
the animals, distance) in behavioral responses. The current behavioral
categorization (i.e., impulse vs. continuous) does not account for
context and is not appropriate for all sound sources. Thus, updated
NOAA Acoustic Guidance (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm),
once completed, will more appropriately categorize behavioral
harassment criteria by activity type. NOAA recognizes, as new science
becomes available, that our current categorizations (i.e., impulse vs.
[[Page 50993]]
continuous) may not fully encompass the complexity associated with
behavioral responses (i.e., context, etc.) and are working toward
addressing these issues in future acoustic guidance. However, in the
meanwhile, while our current behavioral acoustic thresholds may not
fully account for some of the differences observed across taxa and
contexts, they still serve as somewhat conservative generalized
indicators of received levels at which we anticipate behavioral
harassment, and are not undermined by newer information.
Comment 7: The MMC and NRDC recommend that prior to issuance of the
Final Authorization, NMFS include taking by Level B harassment of
humpback whales, gray whales, minke whales, Dall's porpoise, and
Steller sea lion.
Response: The issuance of an Authorization to an applicant is a
request-based process. On the one hand, if NMFS believes that marine
mammals will be taken that are not identified by the applicant, we will
work with the applicant to modify the request to ensure inclusion of
affected species. On the other hand, applicants sometimes request take
of a small number of species that NMFS believes are unlikely to be
encountered but NMFS will authorize take of those species as long as
the necessary findings can be made. NMFS acknowledges that it has
authorized the take of the species identified by commenters that occur
infrequently in Cook Inlet in other Authorizations. However, in those
instances, the applicant requested take of those species and NMFS
analyzed the requests submitted. EMALL believes, and NMFS concurs, that
with the required monitoring, small zones of influence, and short
operating period (as compared to previous activities authorized in Cook
Inlet), the activities are unlikely to result in the take any of the
species identified by the commenters. Moreover, if a species for which
take is not authorized is encountered, the Authorization text states
that the applicant must shut down active sound sources.
Comment 8: The MMC recommends that NMFS require EMALL to monitor
for marine mammals for 30 minutes after authorized activities have
ceased.
Response: NMFS agrees with the MMC and has added a post-activity
monitoring period of 30 minutes as a requirement for this activity. A
30-minute monitoring period after the cessation of authorized sound
source operations can provide useful observations to compare the
behavior and abundance of animals during different scenarios of various
noise levels. This change has been noted in the Authorization text.
Comment 9: The MMC and NRDC recommend that NMFS allow sufficient
time between the close of the comment period and issuance of an
Authorization for NMFS to analyze, consider, and respond fully to
comments received and incorporate changes as appropriate.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the time between the close of
public comment and the target date for issuing the Authorization is
short. However, NMFS fully considered and responded to all comments
before issuing the Authorization, and incorporated changes as
appropriate (i.e., see response to Comment 8).
Comment 10: The NRDC and FOA comment that NEPA mandates that NMFS
may not authorize activities while a programmatic EIS is underway. The
NRDC references 40 CFR 1506.1.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that it is preparing an EIS for
incidental take authorizations in Cook Inlet, AK (79 FR 61616; October
14, 2014). However, NMFS is undertaking this environmental analysis
voluntarily as a decision support tool for processing MMPA ITA requests
in Cook Inlet. The programmatic EIS is meant to address anticipated
future levels of activity in Cook Inlet, which may include increases in
activity, not a specific proposed program or project. NMFS will
continue to prepare EAs or EISs, as appropriate, for specific
individual applications for Incidental Take Authorizations (ITA) at
this time. Consistent with its obligations under NEPA, NMFS prepared an
EA (including an analysis of cumulative effects) prior to issuing the
Authorization to EMALL and determined that issuance of the
Authorization would not significantly impact the quality of the human
environment.
Comment 11: The NRDC commented that NMFS should not issue an
Authorization until it has completed its revision of acoustic
thresholds for take by Level B harrassment.
Response: NMFS notes that NRDC's comment that NMFS uses an outdated
and incorrect threshold for behavioral takes does not include any
specific recommendations. NMFS uses 160 dB (rms) as the exposure level
for estimating take by Level B harassment for most species in most
cases. This threshold was established for underwater impulse sound
sources based on measured avoidance responses observed in whales in the
wild. Specifically, the 160 dB threshold was derived from data for
mother-calf pairs of migrating gray whales (Malme et al., 1983, 1984)
and bowhead whales (Richardson et al., 1985, 1986) responding to
seismic airguns (e.g., impulsive sound source). There is more recent
information bearing on behavioral reactions to seismic airguns, but
while those data illustrate how complex and context-dependent the
relationship is between the two, they do not clearly suggest that there
is a more appropriate level than 160dB to serve as general behavioral
harassment threshold for multiple taxa. See 75 FR 49710, 49716 (August
13, 2010) (IHA for Shell seismic survey in Alaska). Further, it is not
a matter of merely replacing the existing threshold with a new one.
NOAA is working to develop more sophisticated draft guidance for
determining impacts from acoustic sources, including information for
determining Level B harassment thresholds. Due to the complexity of the
task, any guidance will require a rigorous review that includes
internal agency review, public notice and comment, and additional
external peer review before any final product is published. In the
meantime, and taking into consideration the facts and available
science, NMFS determined it is reasonable to use the 160 dB threshold
for estimating takes of marine mammals in Cook Inlet by Level B
harassment. However, we discuss the science on this issue qualitatively
in our analysis of potential effects to marine mammals.
Comment 12: The NRDC comments that NMFS should require the use of
alternative technologies, including quieting technologies, as well as
adopting additional time-area closures.
Response: NMFS responds to this comment as part of the response to
Comment 14 below.
Comment 13: The NRDC comments that the suggestion that Cook Inlet
belugas are habituated to certain levels of anthropogenic activity is
outdated, given a study by Kendall et al. (2014) on impacts to belugas
from construction noise.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that there are scientific records of
belugas responding to anthropogenic noise, as evidenced in Kendall et
al. (2014). 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 depends 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.,
[[Page 50994]]
1999; Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in dive, surfacing, and
respiration patterns.
A study by Lessage et al. (1999) of belugas in the St. Lawrence
River states with respect to modification of vocal behavior that
``Owing to the gregarious nature of belugas, this would not pose a
serious problem for intraherd communication, given the relatively short
distances between herd members; a source of noise would have to be very
close to them to potentially limit any communication within a herd.
However, communication is probably not limited to herd members, since
inter-herd communication may be important during the breeding season,
when locating food sources, when navigating in ice, or when reacting to
large-scale disturbance. On these larger scales, high noise levels
could impair communication.'' NMFS acknowledges the potential for
masking from the sound sources proposed by EMALL and discusses the
potential effects of this. The concerns raised by NRDC in the paper by
Bejder et al. (2009), that animals that do not display overt behavioral
reactions could be incurring harm, is an important component of
understanding the effects of tolerance on mammals in areas of
increasing anthropogenic activity but no mechanism to estimate the
physiological effects from tolerance are currently viable for this
analysis. As noted above, though, even though shutdown measures are in
place that will minimize behavioral harassment of belugas, NMFS does
not reduce the amount of take expected/authorized due to possible
habitation of belugas in Cook Inlet to anthropogenic noise, and the
negligible impact determination below does not rely on an assumption of
habitation to make the necessary findings.
Comment 14: The NRDC comments that NMFS is failing to meet the
requirement of setting forth ``permissible methods of taking pursuant
to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat'' and urges
NMFS to adopt meaningful mitigation and monitoring measures including
requiring applicants to contribute to a comprehensive monitoring plan
to better understand distribution as well as individual and cumulative
effects of human activities on Cook Inlet belugas, which was
incorporated by reference to NRDC's public comment on the Proposed Rule
for Apache Alaska Corporation. In the Apache comment letter, the NRDC
provides a list of approximately eight measures that NMFS ``failed to
consider or adequately consider.''
Response: NMFS provided a detailed discussion of proposed
mitigation measures and the MMPA's ``least practicable impact''
standard in the notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 37465, June 30,
2015), which are repeated in the ``Mitigation'' section of this notice.
The measures that NRDC alleges NMFS failed to consider or adequately
consider are identified and discussed below:
(1) Field testing and use of alternative technologies, such as
vibroseis and gravity gradiometry, to reduce or eliminate the need for
airguns and delaying seismic acquisition in higher density areas until
the alternative technology of marine vibroseis becomes available: EMALL
requested takes of marine mammals incidental to the geotechnical and
geophysical survey operations described in the IHA application, which
identified use of only a 60 in\3\ airgun array with a distance to the
160-dB isopleth of 300m. It would be inappropriate for NMFS to
fundamentally change the specified activity for which EMALL submitted
an IHA application by requiring that they acquire data using an
entirely different system of sound sources, especially if the alternate
technology cannot meet the objectives of the proposed activity.
EMALL knows of no current technology scaled for industrial use that
is reliable enough to meet the environmental challenges of operating in
Cook Inlet. An airgun is only one of several sources proposed by EMALL
and alternative quieting technologies for the boomer, chirp, and
vibracore are undeveloped at this time.
(2) Required use of the lowest practicable source level in
conducting airgun activity: EMALL is requesting to use a 60 in\3\
airgun, a very small source, for a duration of 7 days. This size of
airgun, and the length and area of the survey, is necessary to meet
EMALL's program objectives and minimize geotechnical, geohazard, and
constructability risks.
(3) Seasonal exclusions around river mouths, including early spring
(pre-April 14) exclusions around the Beluga River and Susitna Delta,
and avoidance of other areas that have a higher probability of beluga
occurrence: NMFS has required a 10 mile (16 km) exclusion zone around
the Susitna Delta (which includes the Beluga River) in this IHA. Survey
operations involving the use of airgun, boomer, chirp, and vibracore
will be prohibited in this area between April 15 and October 15. In
both the MMPA and ESA analysis, NMFS determined that this date range is
sufficient to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales and the critical habitat
in the Susitna Delta. While data indicate that belugas may use this
part of the inlet year round, peak use occurs from early May to late
September. NMFS added a 2-week buffer on both ends of this peak usage
period to add extra protection to feeding and calving belugas.
(4) Limitation of the mitigation airgun to the longest shot
interval necessary to carry out its intended purpose: EMALL is not
proposing to use a mitigation airgun, therefore this measure does not
apply.
(5) Immediate suspension of airgun activity, pending investigation,
if any beluga strandings occur within or within an appropriate distance
of the survey area: The IHA requires EMALL to immediately cease
activities and report unauthorized takes of marine mammals, such as
live stranding, injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS will review
the circumstances of EMALL's unauthorized take and determine if
additional mitigation measures are needed before activities can resume
to minimize the likelihood of further unauthorized take and to ensure
MMPA compliance. EMALL may not resume activities until notified by
NMFS. Separately, the IHA includes measures if injured or dead marine
mammals are sighted and the cause cannot be easily determined. In those
cases, NMFS will review the circumstances of the stranding event while
EMALL continues with operations.
(6) Establishment of a larger exclusion zone for beluga whales that
is not predicated on the detection of whale aggregations or cow-calf
pairs: Both the proposed IHA and the issued IHA contain a requirement
for EMALL to delay the start of active acoustic source use or shutdown
the active acoustic sources if a beluga whale is visually sighted
approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone until the animal(s)
are no longer present within the 160-dB zone. The measure applies to
the sighting of any beluga whale, not just sighting of groups or cow-
calf pairs.
Comment 15: FOA comments on several issues related to cumulative
impacts analysis including: (1) NMFS contradicts the Draft Recovery
Plan by issuing Authorizations, given that two concerns of note in the
Plan include noise and cumulative/synergistic effects (2) each phase of
the Alaska LNG project will add to increasing cumulative effects to
Cook Inlet belugas (3) over the past three years, NMFS has authorized
at least 288 takes by Level B harassment of Cook Inlet beluga whales
and that takes for AK LNG must be addressed in the
[[Page 50995]]
context of cumulative impacts from other authorized takes.
Response: Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' implementing regulations
specify how to consider other activities and their impacts on the same
populations when conducting a negligible impact analysis. However,
consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations
(54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into the negligible
impact analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g.,
as reflected in the density/distribution and status of the species,
population size and growth rate, and ambient noise).
Although caution is warranted for noise-producing activities,
especially in light of all of the other activities in Cook Inlet, NMFS
does not agree that issuance of any Authorizations for take of Cook
Inlet beluga whales is contradictory to recommendations in the Draft
Recovery Plan for this species. NMFS is taking a cautious approach,
both in the context of this particular project and Cook Inlet more
broadly, to ensure that all impacts on beluga whales are adequately
analyzed and minimized. For example, the shutdown of active sound
sources at the 160-dB disturbance zone for beluga whales in Cook Inlet
is a precautionary measure not used in other areas to ensure the
minimization of behavioral harassment of belugas. Additionally, a
precautionary approach was taken in estimating the number of exposures
from the proposed EMALL survey, which is likely an overestimate of
individuals taken for reason explained below in the `Take Estimation''
section related to number of individuals taken versus instances of
exposure.
More broadly, NMFS has announced our intent to prepare an EIS to
better analyze cumulative impacts from potential increasing
anthropogenic activities to Cook Inlet beluga whales. In addition,
cumulative effects were addressed in the EA and Biological Opinion
prepared for this action. The cumulative effects section of the EA has
been expanded from the draft EA to discuss potential effects in greater
detail. These documents, as well as the Alaska Marine Stock Assessments
and the most recent abundance estimate for Cook Inlet beluga whales
(Shelden et al, 2015), are part of NMFS' Administrative Record for this
action, and provided the decision maker with information regarding
other activities in the action area that affect marine mammals, an
analysis of cumulative impacts, and other information relevant to the
determination made under the MMPA.
NMFS will continue to analyze monitoring reports from authorized
activities, applicable new science, and the increase of Cook Inlet
activities in the context of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Recovery Plan,
and will also continue to carefully evaluate proposed activities and
recommend mitigation measures to ensure that the issuance of MMPA
authorizations does not negatively impact the recovery of Cook Inlet
belugas.
Comment 16: FOA comments that the Environmental Assessment (EA) was
difficult to find and recommends that NMFS re-open the public comment
period for the EA as well as the Draft Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet
belugas.
Response: NMFS posted a draft of the EA on its Web site for public
review: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/energy_other.htm. On July 6th, the MMC notified NMFS that the documents
were placed under ``Other'' and not ``Natural Gas'' on the Web site.
Once notified, NMFS corrected the error. During and after that time
NMFS received no other communication from any persons or organizations
requesting to be directed to those documents or asking for
clarification as to their location. Therefore, NMFS does not believe
the EA should be reopened for public comment. The Draft Recovery Plan
for Cook Inlet beluga whales is a separate action and the reopening of
its comment period is not relevant to this Authorization.
Comment 17: FOA comments that the Marine Terminal area lies within
beluga Critical Habitat. FOA also comments that effects on habitat
could include disturbance to prey from noise, and disturbances to the
environment from the platform's legs and project discharges from
sampling activities.
Response: The Federal Register notice of the proposed Authorization
analyzed potential effects to prey species and marine mammal habitat.
The possibility of adverse modification to Critical Habitat through
reduction in prey species is addressed in the Biological Opinion, which
resulted in a finding of no adverse modification to critical habitat.
Comment 20: FOA comments that issuance of an IHA to EMALL would
violate the ESA because granting the IHA would ``appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of species in the wild.''
Response: NMFS disagrees with FOA's comment. NMFS Office of
Protected Resources (Permits and Conservation Division) initiated and
engaged in formal consultation with NMFS Alaska Regional Office
(Protected Resources Division) under section 7 of the ESA on the
issuance of the IHA to EMALL. NMFS's Biological Opinion concluded that
the issuance of the IHA is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species (e.g., would not appreciably reduce the
ability of any listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction to survive and
recover in the wild) or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Comment 21: FOA comments that NMFS must include a discussion of
ethics and the rights of wildlife to manage wildlife-human interactions
and suggests that this approach is consistent with NEPA and the ability
to provide a ``full and fair discussion'' of the issues and inform
decision makes and the public of the reasonable alternatives that would
avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human
environment. 40 CFR 1502.1.
Response: Consistent with the requirements of NEPA and CEQ's
implementing regulations, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment
prior to issuing an IHA to EMALL that includes a comprehensive
assessment of the effects of this action and alternative actions on the
human environment, including the impacts of the action and alternative
actions on marine mammal populations. While NMFS shares FAO's concerns
regarding the ethical treatment of animals, it is not possible to
directly address ethical treatment in the context of incidental and
unintended effects (i.e., those authorized by this action), as any pain
resulting from these impacts is far removed from any operator decisions
and is neither observable, measurable or controllable. Instead, IHAs
aim to minimize actual adverse effects to marine mammal individuals and
populations.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Marine mammals that regularly inhabit upper Cook Inlet and Nikiski
activity areas are the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) (Table
6). However, these species are found there in relatively low numbers,
and generally only during the summer fish runs (Nemeth et al. 2007,
Boveng et al. 2012). Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are occasionally
observed in upper Cook Inlet where they have been observed attempting
to prey on beluga whales (Shelden et al. 2003). Based on a number of
factors, Shelden et al. (2003) concluded that the killer whales found
in upper Cook Inlet to date are the transient type, while resident
types
[[Page 50996]]
occasionally enter lower Cook Inlet. Marine mammals occasionally found
in lower Cook Inlet include humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae),
gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), minke whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata), Dall's porpoise (Phocoena dalli), and Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus). Background information of species evaluated in
this Authorization is detailed in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Marine Mammals Inhabiting the Cook Inlet Action Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance Relative
ESA/MMPA status (CV, Nmin, most occurrence in Cook
Species Stock \1\; strategic (Y/ recent abundance Inlet; season of
N) survey) \2\ occurrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale................... Alaska Resident... -;N 2,347 (N/A; 2,084; Occasionally
Alaska Transient.. -:N 2009). sighted in Lower
345 (N/A; 303; Cook Inlet.
2003).
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).
Harbor seal.................... Cook Inlet/ -;N 22,900 (0.053; Frequently found
Shelikof. 21,896; 2006). in upper and
lower inlet;
annual (more in
northern Inlet in
summer).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)
The Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is a
small geographically isolated population that is separated from other
beluga populations by the Alaska Peninsula. The population is
genetically (mtDNA) distinct from other Alaska populations, suggesting
that the Peninsula is an effective barrier to genetic exchange
(O'Corry-Crowe et al. 1997) and that these whales may have been
separated from other stocks at least since the last ice age. Laidre et
al. (2000) examined data from over 20 marine mammal surveys conducted
in the northern Gulf of Alaska and found that sightings of belugas
outside Cook Inlet were exceedingly rare, and these were composed of a
few stragglers from the Cook Inlet DPS observed at Kodiak Island,
Prince William Sound, and Yakutat Bay. Several marine mammal surveys
specific to Cook Inlet (Laidre et al. 2000, Speckman and Piatt 2000),
including those that concentrated on beluga whales (Rugh et al. 2000,
2005a), clearly indicate that this stock largely confines itself to
Cook Inlet. There is no indication that these whales make forays into
the Bering Sea where they might intermix with other Alaskan stocks.
The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was originally estimated at 1,300 whales
in 1979 (Calkins 1989) and has been the focus of management concerns
since experiencing a dramatic decline in the 1990s. Between 1994 and
1998 the stock declined 47%, which has been attributed to
overharvesting by subsistence hunting. During that period, subsistence
hunting was estimated to have annually removed 10-15% of the
population. Only five belugas have been harvested since 1999, yet the
population has continued to decline (Allen and Angliss 2014), with the
most recent estimate at only 312 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). The
NMFS listed the population as ``depleted'' in 2000 as a consequence of
the decline, and as ``endangered'' under the ESA in 2008 when the
population failed to recover following a moratorium on subsistence
harvest. In April 2011, the NMFS designated critical habitat for the
Cook Inlet beluga whale under the ESA (Figure 2 in the application).
Prior to the decline, this DPS was believed to range throughout
Cook Inlet and occasionally into Prince William Sound and Yakutat
(Nemeth et al. 2007). However, the range has contracted coincident with
the population reduction (Speckman and Piatt 2000). During the summer
and fall, beluga whales are concentrated near the Susitna River mouth,
Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon Bay (Nemeth et al. 2007) where
they feed on migrating eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) and salmon
(Onchorhynchus spp.) (Moore et al. 2000). The limits of Critical
Habitat Area 1 reflect the summer distribution (Figure 3 in the
application). During the winter, beluga whales concentrate in deeper
waters in the mid-inlet to Kalgin Island, and in the shallow waters
along the west shore of Cook Inlet to Kamishak Bay. The limits of
Critical Habitat Area 2 reflect the winter distribution. Some whales
may also winter in and near Kachemak Bay.
Goetz et al. (2012) modeled beluga use in Cook Inlet based on the
NMFS aerial surveys conducted between 1994 and 2008. The combined model
results shown in Figure 3 in the application indicate a very clumped
distribution of summering beluga whales, and that lower densities of
belugas are expected to occur in most of the pipeline survey area (but
not necessarily specific G&G survey locations; see Section 6.3 in the
application) and the vicinity of the proposed Marine Terminal. However,
Cook Inlet beluga whales begin moving into Knik Arm around August 15
where they spend about a month feeding on Eagle River salmon. The area
between Nikiski, Kenai, and Kalgin Island provides important wintering
habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales. Use of this area would be
expected between fall and spring, with animals largely absent during
the summer months when G&G surveys would occur (Goetz et al. 2012).
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
Two different stocks of killer whales inhabit the Cook Inlet region
of Alaska: The Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss 2014). The
Alaska Resident killer whale stock is estimated at 2,347 animals and
occurs from Southeast Alaska to the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss
2014). Resident killer whales feed exclusively on fish and are
genetically distinct from transient whales (Saulitis et al. 2000).
The transient killer whales feed primarily on marine mammals
(Saulitis et al. 2000). The transient population inhabiting the Gulf of
Alaska shares mitochondrial DNA haplotypes with whales found along the
Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea, suggesting a common stock,
although there appears to be some subpopulation genetic structuring
occurring to suggest the gene flow between groups is limited (see Allen
and Angliss 2014). For the three regions combined, the transient
population has been estimated at 587 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014).
Killer whales are occasionally observed in lower Cook Inlet,
especially near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden
[[Page 50997]]
et al. 2003, Rugh et al. 2005a). The few whales that have been
photographically identified in lower Cook Inlet belong to resident
groups more commonly found in nearby Kenai Fjords and Prince William
Sound (Shelden et al. 2003). Prior to the 1980s, killer whale sightings
in upper Cook Inlet were very rare. During aerial surveys conducted
between 1993 and 2004, killer whales were observed on only three
flights, all in the Kachemak and English Bay area (Rugh et al. 2005a).
However, anecdotal reports of killer whales feeding on belugas in upper
Cook Inlet began increasing in the 1990s, possibly in response to
declines in sea lion and harbor seal prey elsewhere (Shelden et al.
2003). These sporadic ventures of transient killer whales into beluga
summering grounds have been implicated as a possible contributor to the
decline of Cook Inlet belugas in the 1990s, although the number of
confirmed mortalities from killer whales is small (Shelden et al.
2003). If killer whales were to venture into upper Cook Inlet in 2015,
they might be encountered during the G&G Program.
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
Harbor porpoise are small (approximately 1.2 m [4 ft] in length),
relatively inconspicuous toothed whales. The Gulf of Alaska Stock is
distributed from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass and was most recently
estimated at 31,046 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). They are found
primarily in coastal waters less than 100 m (328 ft) deep (Hobbs and
Waite 2010) where they feed on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), other
schooling fishes, and cephalopods.
Although they have been frequently observed during aerial surveys
in Cook Inlet, most sightings of harbor porpoise are of single animals,
and are concentrated at Chinitna and Tuxedni bays on the west side of
lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a). Dahlheim et al. (2000) estimated
the 1991 Cook Inlet-wide population at only 136 animals. Also, during
marine mammal monitoring efforts conducted in upper Cook Inlet by
Apache from 2012 to 2014, harbor porpoise represented less than 2% of
all marine mammal sightings. However, they are one of the three marine
mammals (besides belugas and harbor seals) regularly seen in upper Cook
Inlet (Nemeth et al. 2007), especially during spring eulachon and
summer salmon runs. Because harbor porpoise have been observed
throughout Cook Inlet during the summer months, including mid-inlet
waters, they represent species that might be encountered during G&G
Program surveys in upper Cook Inlet.
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)
At over 150,000 animals state-wide (Allen and Angliss 2014), harbor
seals are one of the more common marine mammal species in Alaskan
waters. They are most commonly seen hauled out at tidal flats and rocky
areas. Harbor seals feed largely on schooling fish such as Alaska
Pollock, Pacific cod, salmon, Pacific herring, eulachon, and squid.
Although harbor seals may make seasonal movements in response to prey,
they are resident to Alaska and do not migrate.
The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Stock, ranging from approximately Anchorage
down along the south side of the Alaska Peninsula to Unimak Pass, has
been recently estimated at a stable 22,900 (Allen and Angliss 2014).
Large numbers concentrate at the river mouths and embayments of lower
Cook Inlet, including the Fox River mouth in Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al.
2005a). Montgomery et al. (2007) recorded over 200 haulout sites in
lower Cook Inlet alone. However, only a few dozen to a couple hundred
seals seasonally occur in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a), mostly
at the mouth of the Susitna River where their numbers vary with the
spring eulachon and summer salmon runs (Nemeth et al. 2007, Boveng et
al. 2012). Review of NMFS aerial survey data collected from 1993-2012
(Shelden et al. 2013) finds that the annual high counts of seals hauled
out in Cook Inlet ranged from about 100-380, with most of these animals
hauling out at the mouths of the Theodore and Lewis Rivers. There are
certainly thousands of harbor seals occurring in lower Cook Inlet, but
no references have been found showing more than about 400 harbor seals
occurring seasonally in upper Cook Inlet. In 2012, up to 100 harbor
seals were observed hauled out at the mouths of the Theodore and Lewis
rivers (located about 16 km [10 mi] northeast of the pipeline survey
area) during monitoring activity associated with Apache's 2012 Cook
Inlet seismic program, and harbor seals constituted 60 percent of all
marine mammal sightings by Apache observers during 2012 to 2014 survey
and monitoring efforts (L. Parker, Apache, pers. comm.). Montgomery et
al. (2007) also found that seals elsewhere in Cook Inlet move in
response to local steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and salmon runs.
Harbor seals may be encountered during G&G surveys in Cook Inlet.
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Although there is considerable distributional overlap in the
humpback whale stocks that use Alaska, the whales seasonally found in
lower Cook Inlet are probably of the Central North Pacific stock.
Listed as endangered under the ESA, this stock has recently been
estimated at 7,469, with the portion of the stock that feeds in the
Gulf of Alaska estimated at 2,845 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). The
Central North Pacific stock winters in Hawaii and summers from British
Columbia to the Aleutian Islands (Calambokidis et al. 1997), including
Cook Inlet.
Humpback use of Cook Inlet is largely confined to lower Cook Inlet.
They have been regularly seen near Kachemak Bay during the summer
months (Rugh et al. 2005a), and there is a whale-watching venture in
Homer capitalizing on this seasonal event. There are anecdotal
observations of humpback whales as far north as Anchor Point, with
recent summer observations extending to Cape Starichkof (Owl Ridge
2014). Because of the southern distribution of humpbacks in Cook Inlet,
it is unlikely that they will be encountered during this activity in
close enough proximity to cause Level B harassment. Therefore, no take
is authorized for humpback whales.
Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale migrates
8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) northward from breeding lagoons in Baja
California to feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi seas, reversing
their travel again in the fall (Rice and Wolman 1971). Their migration
route is for the most part coastal until they reach the feeding
grounds. A small portion of whales do not annually complete the full
circuit, as small numbers can be found in the summer feeding along the
Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coasts (Rice et al.
1984, Moore et al. 2007).
Human exploitation reduced this stock to an estimated ``few
thousand'' animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). However, by the late
1980s, the stock was appearing to reach carrying capacity and estimated
to be at 26,600 animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). By 2002, that stock
had been reduced to about 16,000 animals, especially following
unusually high mortality events in 1999 and 2000 (Allen and Angliss
2014). The stock has continued to grow since then and is currently
estimated at 19,126 animals with a minimum estimate of 18,017 (Carretta
et al. 2013). Most gray whales migrate past
[[Page 50998]]
the mouth of Cook Inlet to and from northern feeding grounds. However,
small numbers of summering gray whales have been noted by fisherman
near Kachemak Bay and north of Anchor Point. Further, summering gray
whales were seen offshore of Cape Starichkof by marine mammal observers
monitoring Buccaneer's Cosmopolitan drilling program in 2013 (Owl Ridge
2014). Regardless, gray whales are not expected to be encountered in
upper Cook Inlet, where the activity is concentrated, north of Kachemak
Bay. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will be encountered during
this activity in close enough proximity to cause Level B harassment and
are not considered further in this final Authorization notice.
Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)
Minke whales are the smallest of the rorqual group of baleen whales
reaching lengths of up to 35 feet. They are also the most common of the
baleen whales, although there are no population estimates for the North
Pacific, although estimates have been made for some portions of Alaska.
Zerbini et al. (2006) estimated the coastal population between Kenai
Fjords and the Aleutian Islands at 1,233 animals.
During Cook Inlet-wide aerial surveys conducted from 1993 to 2004,
minke whales were encountered only twice (1998, 1999), both times off
Anchor Point 16 miles northwest of Homer. Recently, several minke
whales were recorded off Cape Starichkof in early summer 2013 during
exploratory drilling conducted there (Owl Ridge 2014). There are no
records north of Cape Starichkof, and this species is unlikely to be
seen in upper Cook Inlet. There is little chance of encountering a
minke whale during these activities. Therefore, no take of minke whales
is authorized.
Dall's Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)
Dall's porpoise are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific
Ocean including Alaska, although they are not found in upper Cook Inlet
and the shallower waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas
(Allen and Angliss 2014). Compared to harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise
prefer the deep offshore and shelf slope waters. The Alaskan population
has been estimated at 83,400 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), making
it one of the more common cetaceans in the state. Dall's porpoise have
been observed in lower Cook Inlet, including Kachemak Bay and near
Anchor Point (Owl Ridge 2014), but sightings there are rare. The
concentration of sightings of Dall's porpoise in a southerly part of
the Inlet suggest it is unlikely they will be encountered during
EMALL's activities. Therefore, no take of Dall's porpoise is
authorized.
Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
The Western Stock of the Steller sea lion is defined as all
populations west of longitude 144[deg] W. to the western end of the
Aleutian Islands. The most recent estimate for this stock is 45,649
animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), considerably less than that estimated
140,000 animals in the 1950s (Merrick et al. 1987). Because of this
dramatic decline, the stock was listed under the ESA as a threatened
DPS in 1990, and relisted as endangered in 1997. Critical habitat was
designated in 1993, and is defined as a 20-nautical-mile radius around
all major rookeries and haulout sites. The 20-nautical-mile buffer was
established based on telemetry data that indicated these sea lions
concentrated their summer foraging effort within this distance of
rookeries and haul outs.
Steller sea lions inhabit lower Cook Inlet, especially in the
vicinity of Shaw Island and Elizabeth Island (Nagahut Rocks) haulout
sites (Rugh et al. 2005a), but are rarely seen in upper Cook Inlet
(Nemeth et al. 2007). Of the 42 Steller sea lion groups recorded during
Cook Inlet aerial surveys between 1993 and 2004, none were recorded
north of Anchor Point and only one in the vicinity of Kachemak Bay
(Rugh et al. 2005a). Marine mammal observers associated with
Buccaneer's drilling project off Cape Starichkof did observe seven
Steller sea lions during the summer of 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014).
The upper reaches of Cook Inlet may not provide adequate foraging
conditions for sea lions for establishing a major haul out presence.
Steller sea lions feed largely on walleye pollock, salmon and
arrowtooth flounder during the summer, and walleye pollock and Pacific
cod during the winter (Sinclair and Zeppelin 2002), none of which,
except for salmon, are found in abundance in upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth
et al. 2007). Steller sea lions are unlikely to be encountered during
operations in upper Cook Inlet, as they are primarily encountered along
the Kenai Peninsula, especially closer to Anchor Point. Therefore, no
take of Steller sea lion is authorized.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components (seismic airgun operations, sub-bottom profiler chirper and
boomer, vibracore) of the specified activity 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 NMFS expects to be taken by this activity. The
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how
this specific proposed activity would impact marine mammals and will
consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, the ``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.
NMFS intends to provide a background of potential effects of
EMALL's activities in this section. Operating active acoustic sources
have the potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority
of anticipated impacts would be from the use of active 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. Current
data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing
capabilities (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 1997; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
Southall et al. (2007) designated ``functional hearing groups'' for
marine mammals based on available behavioral data; audiograms derived
from auditory evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; and other data.
Southall et al. (2007) also estimated the lower and upper frequencies
of functional hearing for each group. However, animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of their functional hearing
range and are more sensitive to a range of frequencies within the
middle of their functional hearing range.
The functional groups and the associated frequencies are:
Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
Functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 7 Hertz (Hz)
and 25 kHz (extended from 22 kHz based on data indicating that some
mysticetes can hear above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein,
2007; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
[[Page 50999]]
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): Functional hearing estimates 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 estimates occur between
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
Pinnipeds in water: Phocid (true seals) functional hearing
estimates occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz (Hemila et al.,
2006; Mulsow et al., 2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and otariid (seals
and sea lions) functional hearing estimates occur between approximately
100 Hz to 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, Cook Inlet beluga whales,
harbor porpoise, killer whales, and harbor seals (3 odontocetes and 1
phocid) would likely occur in the action area. Table 2 presents the
classification of these species into their respective functional
hearing group. NMFS consider a species' functional hearing group when
analyzing the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
Table 2--Classification of Marine Mammals That Could Potentially Occur
in the Proposed Activity Area in Cook Inlet, 2015 by Functional Hearing
Group
[Southall et al., 2007]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Frequency Hearing Range............... Beluga whale, killer whale.
High Frequency Hearing Range.............. Harbor porpoise.
Pinnipeds in Water Hearing Range.......... Harbor seal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals
The effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or
more of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral
disturbance, temporary or permanent impairment, or non-auditory
physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et
al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects of
noise on marine mammals are highly variable, often depending on species
and contextual factors (based on Richardson et al., 1995).
Tolerance
Studies on marine mammals' tolerance to sound in the natural
environment are relatively rare. Richardson et al. (1995) defined
tolerance as the occurrence of marine mammals in areas where they are
exposed to human activities or manmade noise. In many cases, tolerance
develops by the animal habituating to the stimulus (i.e., the gradual
waning of responses to a repeated or ongoing stimulus) (Richardson, et
al., 1995), but because of ecological or physiological requirements,
many marine animals may need to remain in areas where they are exposed
to chronic stimuli (Richardson, et al., 1995).
Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are
often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers.
Several studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances of
more than a few kilometers from operating seismic 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 the marine mammal group.
Although various baleen whales and toothed whales, and (less
frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun
pulses under some conditions, at other times marine mammals of all
three types have shown no overt reactions (Stone, 2003; Stone and
Tasker, 2006; Moulton et al. 2005, 2006) and (MacLean and Koski, 2005;
Bain and Williams, 2006).
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 (2008)
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 per hour) for humpback and sperm whales according to the
airgun array's operational status (i.e., active versus silent).
Bain and Williams (2006) examined the effects of a large airgun
array (maximum total discharge volume of 1,100 in \3\) on six species
in shallow waters off British Columbia and Washington: Harbor seal,
California sea lion, Steller sea lion, gray whale, Dall's porpoise, and
harbor porpoise. Harbor porpoises showed reactions at received levels
less than 155 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa at a distance of greater than 70 km (43
mi) from the seismic source (Bain and Williams, 2006). However, the
tendency for greater responsiveness by harbor porpoise is consistent
with their relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other
acoustic sources (Richardson, et al., 1995; Southall, et al., 2007). In
contrast, the authors reported that gray whales seemed to tolerate
exposures to sound up to approximately 170 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa (Bain and
Williams, 2006) and Dall's porpoises occupied and tolerated areas
receiving exposures of 170-180 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa (Bain and Williams,
2006; Parsons, et al., 2009). The authors observed several gray whales
that moved away from the airguns toward deeper water where sound levels
were higher due to propagation effects resulting in higher noise
exposures (Bain and Williams, 2006). However, it is unclear whether
their movements reflected a response to the sounds (Bain and Williams,
2006). Thus, the authors surmised that the lack of gray whale responses
to higher received sound levels were ambiguous at best because one
expects the species to be the most sensitive to the low-frequency sound
emanating from the airguns (Bain and Williams, 2006).
Pirotta et al., (2014) observed short-term responses of harbor
porpoises to a two-dimensional (2-D) seismic survey in an enclosed bay
in northeast Scotland which did not result in broad-scale displacement.
The harbor porpoises that remained in the enclosed bay area reduced
their buzzing activity by 15 percent during the seismic survey
(Pirotta, et al., 2014). Thus, the authors suggest that animals exposed
to anthropogenic disturbance may make trade-offs between perceived
risks and the cost of leaving disturbed areas (Pirotta, et al., 2014).
Masking
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).
The term masking refers to the inability of an animal to recognize
the occurrence of an acoustic stimulus because of interference of
another acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). Thus, masking is the
obscuring of sounds of interest by other sounds, often at similar
frequencies. It is a phenomenon that affects animals that are 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,
[[Page 51000]]
or entire populations in certain circumstances.
Introduced underwater sound may, through masking, reduce the
effective communication distance of a marine mammal species if the
frequency of the source is close to that used as a signal by the marine
mammal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant
fraction of the time (Richardson et al., 1995).
Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking by
adjusting their acoustic behavior through shifting call frequencies,
increasing call volume, and increasing vocalization rates. For example
in one study, blue whales increased call rates when exposed to noise
from seismic surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark,
2010). Other studies reported that some North Atlantic right whales
exposed to high shipping noise increased call frequency (Parks et al.,
2007) and some humpback whales responded to low-frequency active sonar
playbacks by increasing song length (Miller et al., 2000).
Additionally, beluga whales 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).
Studies have shown that some baleen and toothed whales continue
calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and some researchers have
heard these calls between the seismic pulses (e.g., McDonald et al.,
1995; Greene et al., 1999; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004;
Holst et al., 2005a, 2005b, 2006; and Dunn and Hernandez, 2009).
In contrast, Clark and Gagnon (2006) reported that fin whales in
the northeast Pacific Ocean went silent for an extended period starting
soon after the onset of a seismic survey in the area. Similarly, NMFS
is aware of one report that observed sperm whales ceased calls when
exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al.,
1994). However, more recent studies have found that sperm whales
continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et al.,
2002; Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2006; and
Jochens et al., 2008).
Risch et al., (2012) documented reductions in humpback whale
vocalizations in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
concurrent with transmissions of the Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote
Sensing (OAWRS) low-frequency fish sensor system at distances of 200 km
(124 mi) from the source. The recorded OAWRS produced series of
frequency modulated pulses and the signal received levels ranged from
88 to 110 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa (Risch, et al., 2012). The authors
hypothesized that individuals did not leave the area but instead ceased
singing and noted that the duration and frequency range of the OAWRS
signals (a novel sound to the whales) were similar to those of natural
humpback whale song components used during mating (Risch et al., 2012).
Thus, the novelty of the sound to humpback whales in the study area
provided a compelling contextual probability for the observed effects
(Risch et al., 2012). However, the authors did not state or imply that
these changes had long-term effects on individual animals or
populations (Risch et al., 2012).
Several studies have also reported hearing dolphins and porpoises
calling while airguns were operating (e.g., Gordon et al., 2004;
Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, b; and Potter et al., 2007).
The sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much
higher frequencies than the dominant components of airgun sounds, thus
limiting the potential for masking in those species.
Although some degree of masking is inevitable when high levels of
manmade broadband sounds are present in the sea, marine mammals have
evolved systems and behavior that function to reduce the impacts of
masking. Odontocete conspecifics may readily detect structured signals,
such as the echolocation click sequences of small toothed whales 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
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, 2010; Holt et al., 2009).
These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain
mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed
whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding
mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine
mammals. For example, Zaitseva et al. (1980) found that, for the
bottlenose dolphin, the angular separation between a sound source and a
masking noise source had little effect on the degree of masking when
the sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast to the pronounced effect at
higher frequencies. Studies have noted directional hearing 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.
Behavioral Disturbance
Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to
anthropogenic noise. Reactions to
[[Page 51001]]
sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other
factors (Richardson et al., 1995; D'Spain & Wartzok, 2004; Southall et
al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007).
Types of behavioral reactions can include the following: 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, one could expect the consequences
of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Examples of behavioral modifications
that could impact growth, survival, or reproduction include:
Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as
those associated with beaked whale stranding related to exposure to
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
Permanent habitat abandonment 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 (Richardson et
al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007). Many studies have also shown that
marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show
no apparent response when exposed to seismic activities (e.g., Madsen &
Mohl, 2000 for sperm whales; Malme et al., 1983, 1984 for gray whales;
and Richardson et al., 1986 for bowhead whales). Other studies have
shown that marine mammals continue important behaviors in the presence
of seismic pulses (e.g., Dunn & Hernandez, 2009 for blue whales; Greene
Jr. et al., 1999 for bowhead whales; Holst and Beland, 2010; Holst and
Smultea, 2008; Holst et al., 2005; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Richardson,
et al., 1986; Smultea et al., 2004).
Baleen Whales: Studies have shown that underwater sounds from
seismic activities are often readily detectable by baleen whales in the
water at distances of many kilometers (Castellote et al., 2012 for fin
whales).
Observers have seen various species of Balaenoptera (blue, sei,
fin, and minke whales) in areas ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone,
2003; MacLean and Haley, 2004; Stone and Tasker, 2006), and have
localized calls from blue and fin whales in areas with airgun
operations (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995; Dunn and Hernandez, 2009;
Castellote et al., 2010). Sightings by observers on seismic vessels off
the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during times of good
visibility, sighting rates for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei whales)
were similar when large arrays of airguns were shooting versus silent
(Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). However, these whales tended to
exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly further (on
average) from the airgun array during seismic operations compared with
non-seismic periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006).
Ship-based monitoring studies of baleen whales (including blue,
fin, sei, minke, and humpback whales) in the northwest Atlantic found
that overall, this group had lower sighting rates during seismic versus
non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010). The authors observed
that baleen whales as a group were significantly farther from the
vessel during seismic compared with non-seismic periods. Moreover, the
authors observed that the whales swam away more often from the
operating seismic vessel (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Initial sightings
of blue and minke whales were significantly farther from the vessel
during seismic operations compared to non-seismic periods and the
authors observed the same trend for fin whales (Moulton and Holst,
2010). Also, the authors observed that minke whales most often swam
away from the vessel when seismic operations were underway (Moulton and
Holst, 2010).
Toothed Whales: Few systematic data are available describing
reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. However, systematic work
on sperm whales is underway (e.g., Gordon et al., 2006; Madsen et al.,
2006; Winsor and Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2009)
and there is an increasing amount of information about responses of
various odontocetes, including killer whales and belugas, to seismic
surveys based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al.,
2004; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; Holst et al.,
2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Potter et al., 2007; Hauser et al., 2008;
Holst and Smultea, 2008; Weir, 2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Richardson
et al., 2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010). 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.
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). The studies note that killer whales were
significantly farther from large airgun arrays during periods of active
airgun operations compared with periods of silence. 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 (Stone, 2003; Gordon et al., 2004).
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).
Delphinids
Seismic operators and protected species observers (observers) on
seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other small toothed whales
near operating airgun arrays, but in general there is a tendency for
most delphinids to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels
(e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003;
Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006;
Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and
Holst, 2010). 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 (e.g., Moulton and Miller, 2005).
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
[[Page 51002]]
airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c;
Stone and Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008; Moulton and Holst, 2010). In most
cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, on the
order of one km or less, and some individuals show no apparent
avoidance.
Captive bottlenose dolphins exhibited changes in behavior when
exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically
used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2005). However,
the animals tolerated high received levels of sound (pk-pk level >200
dB re 1 [mu]Pa) before exhibiting aversive behaviors.
Porpoises
Results for porpoises depend upon the species. The limited
available data suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance of
seismic operations than do Dall's porpoises (Stone, 2003; MacLean and
Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006). Dall's
porpoises seem relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and
Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006), although they too have been
observed to avoid large arrays of operating airguns (Calambokidis and
Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). This apparent difference in
responsiveness of these two porpoise species is consistent with their
relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other acoustic sources
(Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007).
Pinnipeds
Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the
airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels
has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds and
only slight (if any) changes in behavior. Monitoring work in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 provided considerable information
regarding the behavior of Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic pulses
(Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects
usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 airguns with total volumes of 560 to
1,500 in \3\. The combined results suggest that some seals avoid the
immediate area around seismic vessels. In most survey years, ringed
seal (Phoca hispida) 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 the animals. 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., 1995). 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).
Hearing Impairment
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift--an
increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran et
al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift
include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern,
and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing
threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the
noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is
the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns
to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is
a temporary threshold shift (Southall et al., 2007).
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 EMALL'ssurvey, NMFS
does not expect that animals would experience levels high enough or
durations long enough to result in PTS given that the airgun is a very
low volume airgun, and the use of the airgun will be restricted to
seven days in a small geographic area.
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 non-human animals.
Recent studies by Kujawa and Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011)
found that despite completely reversible threshold shifts that leave
cochlear sensory cells intact, large threshold shifts could cause
synaptic level changes and delayed cochlear nerve
[[Page 51003]]
degeneration in mice and guinea pigs, respectively. NMFS notes that the
high level of TTS that led to the synaptic changes shown in these
studies is in the range of the high degree of TTS that Southall et al.
(2007) used to calculate PTS levels. It is unknown whether smaller
levels of TTS would lead to similar changes. NMFS, however,
acknowledges the complexity of noise exposure on the nervous system,
and will re-examine this issue as more data become available.
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 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).
Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold shift (TS) of a harbor
porpoise after exposing it to airgun noise with a received sound
pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 [mu]Pa, which
corresponds to a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa2 s after
integrating exposure. NMFS currently uses the root-mean-square (rms) of
received SPL at 180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa as the threshold above
which permanent threshold shift (PTS) could occur for cetaceans and
pinnipeds, respectively. Because the airgun noise is a broadband
impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of rms SPL from
the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative
conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys
(McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-
peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL
for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, and the received
levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher. This
is still above NMFS' current 180 dB rms re: 1 [mu]Pa threshold for
injury. However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is lower
than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran & Schlundt,
2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012).
A recent study on bottlenose dolphins (Schlundt, et al., 2013)
measured hearing thresholds at multiple frequencies to determine the
amount of TTS induced before and after exposure to a sequence of
impulses produced by a seismic air gun. The air gun volume and
operating pressure varied from 40-150 in\3\ and 1000-2000 psi,
respectively. After three years and 180 sessions, the authors observed
no significant TTS at any test frequency, for any combinations of air
gun volume, pressure, or proximity to the dolphin during behavioral
tests (Schlundt, et al., 2013). Schlundt et al. (2013) suggest that the
potential for airguns to cause hearing loss in dolphins is lower than
previously predicted, perhaps as a result of the low-frequency content
of air gun impulses compared to the high-frequency hearing ability of
dolphins.
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 one 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 survey; TTS is also unlikely. 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
compared to cetacean reactions.
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
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
(HPA) 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,
the pituitary hormones regulate virtually all neuroendocrine functions
affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior. 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.
[[Page 51004]]
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 the body quickly replenishes after alleviation of the
stressor. 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, it diverts energy resources 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
(McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). 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 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 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 relationship between 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, NMFS assumes that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger
onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress
responses. More importantly, marine mammals 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.
In general, there are few data 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 even for marine mammals in close proximity to large
arrays of airguns. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral
avoidance of seismic vessels, including some pinnipeds, are unlikely to
incur non-auditory impairment or other physical effects. The low volume
of the airgun proposed for this activity combined with the limited
scope of use makes non-auditory physical effects from airgun use,
including stress, unlikely. Therefore, we do not anticipate such
effects would occur given the brief duration of exposure during the
survey.
Stranding and Mortality
When a living or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and
becomes ``beached'' or incapable of returning to sea, the event is a
``stranding'' (Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and
Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The legal definition for a stranding
under the MMPA is that ``(A) a marine mammal is dead and is (i) on a
beach or shore of the United States; or (ii) in waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters); or
(B) a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on a beach or shore of the
United States and is unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or
shore of the United States and, although able to return to the water,
is in need of apparent medical attention; or (iii) in the waters under
the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters),
but is unable to return to its natural habitat under its own power or
without assistance.''
Marine mammals strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious
agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike,
unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or
combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series.
However, the cause or causes of
[[Page 51005]]
most strandings are unknown (Geraci et al., 1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et
al., 1980; Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest that the physiology,
behavior, habitat relationships, age, or condition of cetaceans may
cause them to strand or might pre-dispose them to strand when exposed
to another phenomenon. These suggestions are consistent with the
conclusions of numerous other studies that have demonstrated that
combinations of dissimilar stressors commonly combine to kill an animal
or dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without
the other does not produce the same result (Chroussos, 2000; Creel,
2005; DeVries et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley et al., 2001;
Moberg, 2000; Relyea, 2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., 2004).
Given the low volume and source level of the proposed airgun, standing
and mortality are not anticipated due to use of the airgun proposed for
this activity.
2. Potential Effects of Other Acoustic Devices
Sub-Bottom Profiler
EMALL would also operate a sub-bottom profiler chirp and boomer
from the source vessel during the proposed survey. The chirp's sounds
are very short pulses, occurring for one ms, six times per second. Most
of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the profiler is at 2-6
kHz, and the beam is directed downward. The chirp has a maximum source
level of 202 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa, with a tilt angle of 90 degrees below
horizontal and a beam width of 24 degrees. The sub-bottom profiler
boomer will shoot approximately every 3.125m, with shots lasting 1.5 to
2 seconds. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the boomer
is concentrated between 0.5 and 6 kHz, with a source level of 205dB re:
1[micro]Pa. The tilt of the boomer is 90 degrees below horizontal, but
the emission is omnidirectional. Kremser et al., (2005) noted that the
probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when a
bottom profiler emits a pulse is small--because if the animal was in
the area, it would have to pass the transducer at close range in order
to be subjected to sound levels that could cause temporary threshold
shift and would likely exhibit avoidance behavior to the area near the
transducer rather than swim through at such a close range.
Masking: Both the chirper and boomer sub-bottom profilers produce
impulsive sound exceeding 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms). The louder boomer
operates at a source value of 205 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms), but with a
frequency between 0.5 and 6 kHz, which is lower than the maximum
sensitivity hearing range of any the local species (belugas--40-130
kHz;, killer whales--7-30 kHz; harbor porpoise--100-140 kHz; and harbor
seals--10-30 kHz; Wartzok and Ketten 1999, Southall et al. 2007,
Kastelein et al. 2002). While the chirper is not as loud (202 dB re 1
[mu]Pa-m [rms]), it does operate at a higher frequency range (2-16
kHz), and within the maximum sensitive range of all of the local
species except beluga whales.
Marine mammal communications would not likely be masked appreciably
by the profiler's signals given the directionality of the signal and
the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its
beam. Furthermore, despite the fact that the profiler overlaps with
hearing ranges of many marine mammal species in the area, the
profiler's signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in
the calls, which would avoid significant masking.
Behavioral Responses: Responses to the profiler are likely to be
similar to the other pulsed sources discussed earlier if received at
the same levels. The behavioral response of local marine mammals to the
operation of the sub-bottom profilers is expected to be similar to that
of the small airgun. The odontocetes are likely to avoid the sub-bottom
profiler activity, especially the naturally shy harbor porpoise, while
the harbor seals might be attracted to them out of curiosity. However,
because the sub-bottom profilers operate from a moving vessel, and the
maximum radius to the 160 dB harassment threshold is only 263 m (863
ft), the area and time that this equipment would be affecting a given
location is very small.
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects: It is unlikely that
the sub-bottom profilers produce sound levels strong enough to cause
hearing impairment or other physical injuries even in an animal that is
(briefly) in a position near the source (Wood et al., 2012). The
likelihood of marine mammals moving away from the source make if
further unlikely that a marine mammal would be able to approach close
to the transducers.
Animals may avoid the area around the survey vessels, thereby
reducing exposure. Any disturbance to marine mammals is likely to be in
the form of temporary avoidance or alteration of opportunistic foraging
behavior near the survey location.
Vibracore
EMALL would conduct vibracoring in a corridor across a northern
portion of Cook Inlet and near the marine terminal area for a total of
55 vibracoring occurrences. While duration is dependent on sediment
type, the driving mechanism, which emits sound at a source level of
187dB re: 1[micro]Pa, will only bore for 1 to 2 minutes. The sound is
emitted at a frequency of 10 Hz to 20 kHz. Cores will be bored at
approximately every 4 km along the pipeline corridor, for about 22
cores in that area. Approximately 33 cores will be taken in the Marine
Terminal area.
Masking: It is unlikely that masking will occur due to vibracore
operations. Chorney et al. (2011) conducted sound measurements on an
operating vibracorer in Alaska and found that it emitted a sound
pressure level at 1-m source of 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms), with a
frequency range of between 10 Hz and 20 kHz. While the frequency range
overlaps the lower ends of the maximum sensitivity hearing ranges of
harbor porpoises, killer whales, and harbor seals, and the continuous
sound extends 2.54 km (1.6 mi) to the 120 dB threshold, the vibracorer
will operate about the one or two minutes it takes to drive the core
pipe 7 m (20 ft) into the sediment, and approximately twice per day.
Therefore, there is very little opportunity for this activity to mask
the communication of local marine mammals.
Behavioral Response: It is unlikely that vibracoring will elicit
behavioral responses from marine mammal species in the area. An
analysis of similar survey activity in New Zealand classified the
likely effects from vibracore and similar activity to be some habitat
degradation and prey species effects, but primarily behavioral
responses, although the species in the analyzed area were different to
those found in Cook Inlet (Thompson, 2012).
There are no data on the behavioral response to vibracore activity
of marine mammals in Cook Inlet. The closest analog to vibracoring
might be exploratory drilling, although there is a notable difference
in magnitude between an oil and gas drilling operation and collecting
sediment samples with a vibracorer. Thomas et al. (1990) played back
drilling sound to four captive beluga whales and found no statistical
difference in swim patterns, social groups, respiration and dive rates,
or stress hormone levels before and during playbacks. There is no
reason to believe that beluga whales or any other marine mammal exposed
to vibracoring sound would behave any differently, especially since
vibracoring occurs for only one or two minutes.
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects: The vibracorer
operates for only one or two minutes at a time with a 1-m source of
187.4 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-
[[Page 51006]]
m (rms). It is neither loud enough nor does it operate for a long
enough duration to induce either TTS or PTS.
Stranding and Mortality
Stress, Stranding, and Mortality Safety zones will be established
to prevent acoustical injury to local marine mammals, especially injury
that could indirectly lead to mortality. Also, G&G sound is not
expected to cause resonate effects to gas-filled spaces or airspaces in
marine mammals based on the research of Finneran (2003) on beluga
whales showing that the tissue and other body masses dampen any
potential effects of resonance on ear cavities, lungs, and intestines.
Chronic exposure to sound could lead to physiological stress eventually
causing hormonal imbalances (NRC 2005). If survival demands are already
high, and/or additional stressors are present, the ability of the
animal to cope decreases, leading to pathological conditions or death
(NRC 2005). Potential effects may be greatest where sound disturbance
can disrupt feeding patterns including displacement from critical
feeding grounds. However, all G&G exposure to marine mammals would be
of duration measured in minutes.
Specific sound-related processes that lead to strandings and
mortality are not well documented, but may include (1) swimming in
avoidance of a sound into shallow water; (2) a change in behavior (such
as a change in diving behavior) that might contribute to tissue damage,
gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, hypertensive
hemorrhage, or other forms of trauma; (3) a physiological change such
as a vestibular response leading to a behavioral change or stress-
induced hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn to tissue damage; and,
(4) tissue damage directly from sound exposure, such as through
acoustically mediated bubble formation and growth or acoustic resonance
of tissues (Wood et al. 2012). Some of these mechanisms are unlikely to
apply in the case of impulse G&G sounds, especially since airguns and
sub-bottom profilers produce broadband sound with low pressure rise.
Strandings to date which have been attributed to sound exposure related
to date from military exercises using narrowband mid-frequency sonar
with a much greater likelihood to cause physical damage (Balcomb and
Claridge 2001, NOAA and USN, 2001, Hildebrand 2005).
The low intensity, low frequency, broadband sound associated with
airguns and sub-bottom profilers, combined with the shutdown safety
zone mitigation measure for the airgun would prevent physical damage to
marine mammals. The vibracoring would also be unlikely to have the
capability of causing physical damage to marine mammals because of its
low intensity and short duration.
3. Potential Effects of Vessel Movement and Collisions
Vessel movement in the vicinity of marine mammals has the potential
to result in either a behavioral response or a direct physical
interaction. We discuss both scenarios here.
Behavioral Responses to Vessel Movement: There are limited data
concerning marine mammal behavioral responses to vessel traffic and
vessel noise, and a lack of consensus among scientists with respect to
what these responses mean or whether they result in short-term or long-
term adverse effects. In those cases where there is a busy shipping
lane or where there is a large amount of vessel traffic, marine mammals
may experience acoustic masking (Hildebrand, 2005) if they are present
in the area (e.g., killer whales in Puget Sound; Foote et al., 2004;
Holt et al., 2008). In cases where vessels actively approach marine
mammals (e.g., whale watching or dolphin watching boats), scientists
have documented that animals exhibit altered behavior such as increased
swimming speed, erratic movement, and active avoidance behavior (Bursk,
1983; Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and Bain, 2000;
Williams et al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow interval
(Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption of normal social behaviors (Lusseau,
2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral activities which may increase
energetic costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004). A detailed review of
marine mammal reactions to ships and boats is available in Richardson
et al. (1995). For each of the marine mammal taxonomy groups,
Richardson et al. (1995) provides the following assessment regarding
reactions to vessel traffic:
Pinnipeds: Reactions by pinnipeds to vessel disturbance largely
involve relocation. Harbor seals hauled out on mud flats have been
documented returning to the water in response to nearing boat traffic.
Vessels that approach haulouts slowly may also elicit alert reactions
without flushing from the haulout. Small boats with slow, constant
speed elicit the least noticeable reactions. However, in Alaska
specifically, harbor seals are documented to tolerate fishing vessels
with no discernable reactions, and habituation is common (Burns in
Johnson et al., 1989).
Porpoises: Harbor porpoises are often seen changing direction in
the presence of vessel traffic. Avoidance has been documented up to 1km
away from an approaching vessel, but the avoidance response is
strengthened in closer proximity to vessels (Barlow, 1998; Palka,
1993). This avoidance behavior is not consistent across all porpoises,
as Dall's porpoises have been observed approaching boats.
Toothed whales: In summary, toothed whales sometimes show no
avoidance reaction to vessels, or even approach them. However,
avoidance can occur, especially in response to vessels of types used to
chase or hunt the animals. This may cause temporary displacement, but
we know of no clear evidence that toothed whales have abandoned
significant parts of their range because of vessel traffic.
Behavioral responses to stimuli are complex and influenced to
varying degrees by a number of factors, such as species, behavioral
contexts, geographical regions, source characteristics (moving or
stationary, speed, direction, etc.), prior experience of the animal and
physical status of the animal. For example, studies have shown that
beluga whales' reactions varied when exposed to vessel noise and
traffic. In some cases, naive beluga whales exhibited rapid swimming
from ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7 mi) away, and showed
changes in surfacing, breathing, diving, and group composition in the
Canadian high Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley et al.,
1990). In other cases, beluga whales were more tolerant of vessels, but
responded differentially to certain vessels and operating
characteristics by reducing their calling rates (especially older
animals) in the St. Lawrence River where vessel traffic is common
(Blane and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, Alaska, beluga whales
continued to feed when surrounded by fishing vessels and resisted
dispersal even when purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, 1971).
In reviewing more than 25 years of whale observation data, Watkins
(1986) concluded that whale reactions to vessel traffic were ``modified
by their previous experience and current activity: Habituation often
occurred rapidly, attention to other stimuli or preoccupation with
other activities sometimes overcame their interest or wariness of
stimuli.'' Watkins noticed that over the years of exposure to ships in
the Cape Cod area, minke whales changed from frequent positive interest
(e.g., approaching vessels) to generally uninterested reactions; fin
whales changed from mostly negative (e.g.,
[[Page 51007]]
avoidance) to uninterested reactions; right whales apparently continued
the same variety of responses (negative, uninterested, and positive
responses) with little change; and humpbacks dramatically changed from
mixed responses that were often negative to reactions that were often
strongly positive. Watkins (1986) summarized that ``whales near shore,
even in regions with low vessel traffic, generally have become less
wary of boats and their noises, and they have appeared to be less
easily disturbed than previously. In particular locations with intense
shipping and repeated approaches by boats (such as the whale-watching
areas of Stellwagen Bank), more and more whales had positive reactions
to familiar vessels, and they also occasionally approached other boats
and yachts in the same ways.''
Vessel Strike
Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause major wounds, which may lead to
the death of the animal. An animal at the surface could be struck
directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a
vessel, or a vessel's propeller could injure an animal just below the
surface. The severity of injuries typically depends on the size and
speed of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001;
Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007).
The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended
periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within
their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In addition,
some baleen whales, such as the North Atlantic right whale, seem
generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making them more susceptible to
vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These species are primarily
large, slow moving whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., bottlenose
dolphin) move quickly through the water column and are often seen
riding the bow wave of large ships. Marine mammal responses to vessels
may include avoidance and changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003).
An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources
(civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in
whether a vessel strike results in death (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001;
Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and Taggart,
2007). In assessing records with known vessel speeds, Laist et al.
(2001) found a direct relationship between the occurrence of a whale
strike and the speed of the vessel involved in the collision. The
authors concluded that most deaths occurred when a vessel was traveling
in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 mph; 13 kts). Given the slow vessel speeds
necessary for data acquisition, ship strike is unlikely to occur during
this survey.
Entanglement
Entanglement can occur if wildlife becomes immobilized in survey
lines, cables, nets, or other equipment that is moving through the
water column. The proposed survey would require towing approximately
150 ft of cables. This size of the array generally carries a lower risk
of entanglement for marine mammals. Wildlife, especially slow moving
individuals, such as large whales, have a low probability of
entanglement due to the low amount of slack in the lines, slow speed of
the survey vessel, and onboard monitoring. Pinnipeds and porpoises are
the least likely to entangle in equipment, as most documented cases of
entanglement involve fishing gear and prey species (Gales et al.,
2003). There are no reported cases of entanglement from geophysical
equipment in the Cook Inlet area.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The G&G Program survey areas are primarily within upper Cook Inlet,
although the Marine Terminal survey area is located near Nikiski just
south of the East Foreland (technically in Lower Cook Inlet), which
includes habitat for prey species of marine mammals, including fish as
well as invertebrates eaten by Cook Inlet beluga whales. This area
contains Critical Habitat for Cook Inlet belugas, is near the breeding
grounds for the local harbor seal population, and serves as an
occasional feeding ground for killer whales and harbor porpoises. Cook
Inlet is a large subarctic estuary roughly 299 km (186 mi) in length
and averaging 96 km (60 mi) in width. It extends from the city of
Anchorage at its northern end and flows into the Gulf of Alaska at its
southernmost end. For descriptive purposes, Cook Inlet is separated
into unique upper and lower sections, divided at the East and West
Forelands, where the opposing peninsulas create a natural waistline in
the length of the waterway, measuring approximately 16 km (10 mi)
across (Mulherin et al. 2001).
Potential effects on beluga habitat would be limited to noise
effects on prey; direct impact to benthic habitat from jack-up platform
leg placement, and sampling with grabs, coring, and boring; and small
discharges of drill cuttings and drilling mud associated with the
borings. Portions of the survey areas include waters of Cook Inlet that
are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth and within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous
streams. Several anadromous streams (Three-mile Creek, Indian Creek,
and two unnamed streams) enter the Cook Inlet within the survey areas.
Other anadromous streams are located within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of the
survey areas. The survey program will not prevent beluga access to the
mouths of these streams and will result in no short-term or long-term
loss of intertidal or subtidal waters that are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth
and within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous streams. Minor seafloor
impacts will occur in these areas from grab samples, PCPTs, vibracores,
or geotechnical borings but will have no effect on the area as beluga
habitat once the vessel or jack-up platform has left. The survey
program will have no effect on this habitat.
Cook Inlet beluga whales may avoid areas ensonified by the
geophysical or geotechnical activities that generate sound with
frequencies within the beluga hearing range and at levels above
threshold values. This includes the chirp sub-bottom profiler with a
radius of 184 m (604 ft), the boomer sub-bottom profiler with a radius
of 263 m (863 ft), the airgun with a radius of 300 m (984 ft) and the
vibracores with a radius of 2.54 km (1.58 mi). The sub-bottom profilers
and the airgun will be operated from a vessel moving at speeds of about
4 kt. The operation of a vibracore has a duration of approximately 1-2
minutes. All of these activities will be conducted in relatively open
areas of the Cook Inlet within Critical Habitat Area 2. Given the size
and openness of the Cook Inlet in the survey areas, and the relatively
small area and mobile/temporary nature of the zones of ensonification,
the generation of sound by the G&G activities is not expected to result
in any restriction of passage of belugas within or between critical
habitat areas. The jack-up platform from which the geotechnical borings
will be conducted will be attached to the seafloor with legs, and will
be in place at a given location for up to 4-5 days, but given its small
size (Table 4 in the application) would not result in any obstruction
of passage by belugas.
Upper Cook Inlet comprises the area between Point Campbell
(Anchorage) down to the Forelands, and is roughly 95 km (59 mi) in
length and 24.9 km (15.5 mi) in width (Mulherin et al. 2001). Five
major rivers (Knik, Matanuska, Susitna, Little Susitna, and Beluga)
deliver freshwater to upper Cook Inlet, carrying a heavy annual
sediment load of over 40 million tons of eroded materials and glacial
silt (Brabets 1999). As a result, upper Cook Inlet is
[[Page 51008]]
relatively shallow, averaging 18.3 m (60 ft) in depth. It is
characterized by shoals, mudflats, and a wide coastal shelf, less than
17.9 m (59 ft) deep, extending from the eastern shore. A deep trough
exists between Trading Bay and the Middle Ground Shoal, ranging from 35
to 77 m (114-253 ft) deep (NOAA Nautical Chart 16660). The substrate
consists of a mixture of coarse gravels, cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay,
and silt (Bouma et al. 1978, Rappeport 1982).
Upper Cook Inlet experiences some of the most extreme tides in the
world, demonstrated by a mean tidal range from 4.0 m (13 ft) at the
Gulf of Alaska end to 8.8 m (29 ft) near Anchorage (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2013). Tidal currents reach 3.9 kts per second (Mulherin et
al. 2001) in upper Cook Inlet, increasing to 5.7-7.7 kts per second
near the Forelands where the inlet is constricted. Each tidal cycle
creates significant turbulence and vertical mixing of the water column
in the upper inlet (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013), and are
reversing, meaning that they are marked by a period of slack tide
followed an acceleration in the opposite direction (Mulherin et al.
2001).
Because of scouring, mixing, and sediment transport from these
currents, the marine invertebrate community is very limited (Pentec
2005). Of the 50 stations sampled by Saupe et al. 2005 for marine
invertebrates in Southcentral Alaska, their upper Cook Inlet station
had by far the lowest abundance and diversity. Further, the fish
community of upper Cook Inlet is characterized largely by migratory
fish--eulachon and Pacific salmon--returning to spawning rivers, or
outmigrating salmon smolts. Moulton (1997) documented only 18 fish
species in upper Cook Inlet compared to at least 50 species found in
lower Cook Inlet (Robards et al. 1999).
Lower Cook Inlet extends from the Forelands southwest to the inlet
mouth demarked by an approximate line between Cape Douglas and English
Bay. Water circulation in lower Cook Inlet is dominated by the Alaska
Coastal Current (ACC) that flows northward along the shores of the
Kenai Peninsula until it turns westward and is mixed by the combined
influences of freshwater input from upper Cook Inlet, wind, topography,
tidal surges, and the coriolis effect (Field and Walker 2003, MMS
1996). Upwelling by the ACC brings nutrient-rich waters to lower Cook
Inlet and contributes to a biologically rich and productive ecology
(Sambrotto and Lorenzen 1986). Tidal currents average 2-3 kt per second
and are rotary in that they do not completely go slack before rotating
around into an opposite direction (Gatto 1976, Mulherin et al. 2001).
Depths in the central portion of lower Cook Inlet are 60-80 m (197-262
ft) and decrease steadily toward the shores (Muench 1981). Bottom
sediments in the lower inlet are coarse gravel and sand that grade to
finer sand and mud toward the south (Bouma 1978).
Coarser substrate support a wide variety of invertebrates and fish
including Pacific halibut, Dungeness crab, tanner crab, pandalid
shrimp, Pacific cod, and rock sole, while the soft-bottom sand and silt
communities are dominated by polychaetes, bivalves and other flatfish
(Field and Walker 2003). These species constitute prey species for
several marine mammals in Cook Inlet, including pinnipeds and Cook
Inlet belugas. Sea urchins and sea cucumbers are important otter prey
and are found in shell debris communities. Razor clams are found all
along the beaches of the Kenai Peninsula. In general, the lower Cook
Inlet marine invertebrate community is of low abundance, dominated by
polychaetes, until reaching the mouth of the inlet (Saupe et al. 2005).
Overall, the lower Cook Inlet marine ecosystem is fed by midwater
communities of phytoplankton and zooplankton, with the latter composed
mostly of copepods and barnacle and crab larvae (Damkaer 1977, English
1980).
G&G Program activities that could potentially impact marine mammal
habitats include sediment sampling (vibracore, boring, grab sampling)
on the sea bottom, placement of the jack-up platform spud cans, and
acoustical injury of prey resources. However, there are few benthic
resources in the survey area that could be impacted by collection of
the small samples (Saupe et al. 2005).
Acoustical effects to marine mammal prey resources are also
limited. Christian et al. (2004) studied seismic energy impacts on male
snow crabs and found no significant increases in physiological stress
due to exposure to high sound pressure levels. No acoustical impact
studies have been conducted to date on the above fish species, but
studies have been conducted on Atlantic cod and sardine. Davis et al.
(1998) cited various studies that found no effects to Atlantic cod
eggs, larvae, and fry when received levels were 222 dB. Effects found
were to larval fish within about 5.0 m (16 ft), and from air guns with
volumes between 49,661 and 65,548 cm3 (3,000 and 4,000 in\3\).
Similarly, effects to sardine were greatest on eggs and 2-day larvae,
but these effects were greatest at 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and again confined
to 5.0 m (16 ft). Further, Greenlaw et al. (1988) found no evidence of
gross histological damage to eggs and larvae of northern anchovy
exposed to seismic air guns, and concluded that noticeable effects
would result only from multiple, close exposures. Based on these
results, much lower energy impulsive geophysical equipment planned for
this program would not damage larval fish or any other marine mammal
prey resource.
Potential damage to the Cook Inlet benthic community will be
limited to the actual surface area of the four spud cans that form the
``foot'' of each 0.762-m (30-in) diameter leg, the 42 0.1524-m (6-in)
diameter borings, and the 55 0.0762-m (3-in) diameter vibracore
samplings (plus several grab and PCPT samples). Collectively, these
samples would temporarily damage about a hundred square meters of
benthic habitat relative to the size (nearly 21,000 km2/8,108 mi2) of
Cook Inlet. Overall, sediment sampling and acoustical effects on prey
resources will have a negligible effect at most on the marine mammal
habitat within the G&G Program survey area. Some prey resources might
be temporarily displaced, but no long-term effects are expected.
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program will result in a number of minor
discharges to the waters of Cook Inlet. Discharges associated with the
geotechnical borings will include: (1) The discharge of drill cuttings
and drilling fluids and (2) the discharge of deck drainage (runoff of
precipitation and deck wash water) from the geotechnical drilling
platform. Other vessels associated with the G&G surveys will discharge
wastewaters that are normally associated with the operation of vessels
in transit including deck drainage, ballast water, bilge water, non-
contact cooling water, and gray water.
The discharges of drill cuttings, drilling fluids, and deck
drainage associated with the geotechnical borings will be within
limitations authorized by the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation under the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The drill cuttings consist of natural geologic materials of the
seafloor sediments brought to the surface via the drill bit/drill stem
of the rotary drilling operation, will be relatively minor in volume,
and deposit over a very small area of Cook Inlet seafloor. The drilling
fluids which are used to lubricate the bit, stabilize the hole, and
viscosify the slurry for transport of the solids to the surface will
consist of seawater and guar gum. Guar gum is a high-molecular weight
polysaccharide (galactose and
[[Page 51009]]
mannose units) derived from the ground seeds of the plant Cyampsis
gonolobus. It is a non-toxic fluid also used as a food additive in
soups, drinks, breads, and meat products.
Vessel discharges will be authorized under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to
the Normal Operation of Vessels. Each vessel will have obtained
authorization under the VGP and will discharge according to the
conditions and limitations mandated by the permit. As required by
statute and regulation, the EPA has made a determination that such
discharges will not result in any unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment, including:
significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability of the biological community within the area
of discharge and surrounding biological communities,
threat to human health through direct exposure to
pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms, or
loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific or economic
values which is unreasonable in relation to the benefit derived from
the discharge.
Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse 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).
To mitigate potential acoustical impacts to local marine mammals,
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will operate aboard the vessels from
which the chirper, boomer, airgun, and vibracorer will be deployed. The
PSOs will implement the mitigation measures described in the Marine
Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (Appendix A of the application).
These mitigations include: (1) Establishing safety zones to ensure
marine mammals are not injured by sound pressure levels exceeding Level
A injury thresholds; (2) shutting down the airgun when required to
avoid harassment of beluga whales approaching the 160-dB disturbance
zone; and (3) timing survey activity to avoid concentrations of beluga
whales on a seasonal basis.
Before chirper, boomer, airgun, and vibracoring operations begin
each day and before restarting operations after a shutdown of 15
minutes or greater, the PSOs will ``clear'' both the Level A and Level
B Zones of Influence (ZOIs--area from the source to the 160dB or 180/
190dB isopleths) of marine mammals by intensively surveying these ZOIs
prior to activity to confirm that marine mammals are not seen in the
applicable area. All three geophysical activities (boomer, chirp,
airgun) will be shut down in mid-operation at the approach to any
marine mammal to the Level A safety zone, and at the approach of an
ESA-listed beluga whale to the Level B harassment zone for these
sources. The geotechnical vibracoring lasts only one or two minutes and
shutdowns are likely impossible. Finally, the G&G Program will be
planned to avoid high beluga whale density areas. This would be
achieved by conducting surveys at the Marine Terminal and the southern
end of the pipeline survey area when beluga whales are farther north,
feeding near the Susitna Delta, and completing activities in the
northern portion of the pipeline survey area when the Cook Inlet beluga
whales have begun to disperse from the Susitna Delta and other summer
concentration areas.
Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring
EMALL will hire qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs. These PSOs will
be stationed aboard the geophysical survey source or support vessels
during sub-bottom profiling, air gun, and vibracoring operations. A
single senior PSO will be assigned to oversee all Marine Mammal
Mitigation and Monitoring Program mandates and function as the on-site
person-in-chargeimplementing the 4MP.
Generally, two PSOs will work on a rotational basis during daylight
hours with shifts of 4 to 6 hours, and one PSO on duty on each source
vessel at all times. Work days for an individual PSO will not exceed 12
hours in duration. Sufficient numbers of PSOs will be available and
provided to meet requirements.
Roles and responsibilities of all PSOs include the following:
Accurately observe and record sensitive marine mammal
species;
Follow monitoring and data collection procedures; and
Ensure mitigation measures are followed.
PSOs will be stationed at the best available vantage point on the
source vessels. PSOs will scan systematically with the unaided eye and
7x50 reticle binoculars. As necessary, new PSOs will be paired with
experienced PSOs to ensure that the quality of marine mammal
observations and data recording are consistent.
All field data collected will be entered by the end of the day into
a custom database using a notebook computer. Weather data relative to
viewing conditions will be collected hourly, on rotation, and when
sightings occur and include the following:
Sea state;
Wind speed and direction;
Sun position; and
Percent glare.
The following data will be collected for all marine mammal
sightings:
Bearing and distance to the sighting;
Species identification;
Behavior at the time of sighting (e.g., travel, spy-hop,
breach, etc.);
Direction and speed relative to vessel;
Reaction to activities--changes in behavior (e.g., none,
avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.);
Group size;
Orientation when sighted (e.g., toward, away, parallel,
etc.);
Closest point of approach;
Sighting cue (e.g., animal, splash, birds, etc.);
Physical description of features that were observed or
determined not to be present in the case of unknown or unidentified
animals;
Time of sighting;
Location, speed, and activity of the source and mitigation
vessels, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and positions
of other vessel(s) in the vicinity, and
Mitigation measure taken--if any.
All observations and shut downs will be recorded in a standardized
format and data entered into a custom database using a notebook
computer. Accuracy of all data will be verified daily by the PIC or
designated PSO by a manual verification. These procedures will reduce
errors, allow the preparation of short-term data summaries, and
facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other
programs for further processing and archiving. PSOs will conduct
monitoring during daylight periods (weather permitting) during G&G
activities, and during most daylight periods when G&G activities are
temporarily suspended.
Shutdown Procedures
If any marine mammal is seen approaching the Level A injury zone
for the air gun, chirp, or boomer, these sources will be shut down. If
ESA-listed marine mammals (e.g., beluga whales) are observed
approaching the Level B
[[Page 51010]]
harassment zone for the air gun, chirp, or boomer, these sources will
be shut down. The PSOs will ensure that the harassment zone is clear of
marine mammal activity before vibracoring will occur. Given that
vibracoring lasts only about a minute or two, shutdown actions are not
practicable.
Resuming Airgun Operations After a 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), or 30 minutes for large odontocetes (e.g., killer whales
and beluga whales).
Speed and Course Alterations
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
survey program. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to
the sound source 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 or shut down of the active sound sources considered
in this Authorization.
Mitigation Required by NMFS
Special Procedures for Situations or Species of Concern
The following additional protective measures for beluga whales and
groups of five or more killer whales and harbor porpoises are required.
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 Cook Inlet 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
boomer, chirp, and airgun may be powered down before the animal is
within the 160-dB disturbance zone, as an alternative to a complete
shutdown. If the PSO determines 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.
Mitigation Exclusion Zones
NMFS requires that EMALL will not operate the chirp, boomer,
vibracore, or airgun within 10 miles (16 km) of the mean lower low
water (MLLW) 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 will be in effect
from April 15th to October 15th annually. Activities can occur within
this area from October 16th-April 14th.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated EMALL's mitigation measures in the
context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least
practicable 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 measure is 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 here:
Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine
mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this
goal).
A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number
or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to airgun
operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this
goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
A reduction in the number of times (total number or number
at biologically important time or location) individuals would be
exposed to airgun operations that we expect to result in the take of
marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing
harassment takes only).
A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total
number or number at biologically important time or location) to airgun
operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this
goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of
harassment takes only).
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.
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 the evaluation of EMALL's measures, as well as other
measures required by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation
measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on
marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance. Measures to ensure availability of such species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this
document (see ``Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for
Taking for Subsistence Uses'' section).
Monitoring and Reporting
Weekly Field Reports
Weekly reports will be submitted to NMFS no later than the close of
business (Alaska Time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water G&G
activities take place. The reports will cover information collected
from Wednesday of the previous week through Tuesday of the current
week.
[[Page 51011]]
The field reports will summarize species detected, in-water activity
occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral reactions to in-water
activities, and the number of marine mammals exposed to harassment
level noise.
Monthly Field Reports
Monthly reports will be submitted to NMFS for all months during
which in-water G&G activities take place. The reports will be submitted
to NMFS no later than five business days after the end of the month.
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 the G&G Program and marine mammal
sightings.
Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and
behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated G&G
activity (number of shut downs), observed throughout all monitoring
activities.
An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds
that have been exposed to the authorized geophysical or geotechnical
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 geophysical
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.
An estimate of the number (by species) of pinnipeds and
cetaceans that have been exposed to the geotechnical activity (based on
visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 120 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; and (ii) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the
Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each
Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and
describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the
action on ESA-listed marine mammals.
90-Day Technical Report
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of
the project or at least 60 days before the request for another IHA for
the next open water season to enable NMFS to incorporate observation
data into the next Authorization. The report will summarize all
activities and monitoring results (i.e., vessel-based visual
monitoring) conducted during in-water G&G surveys. The Technical Report
will include the following:
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 G&G 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) estimates of Level B harassment
based on presence in the 120 or 160 dB harassment zone.
Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity leads to an
injury of a marine mammal (Level A harassment) or mortality (e.g.,
ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), EMALL would
immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office
of Protected Resources, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators
at NMFS. The report would 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 would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the event. EMALL would work with NMFS to minimize
reoccurrence of such an event in the future. The G&G Program would not
resume activities until formally notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that the G&G Program 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), the Applicant would immediately report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email
to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would include
the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities
would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS would work with the Applicant to determine if
modifications in the activities are appropriate.
In the event that the G&G Program 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 IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), EMALL would report the incident to
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email
to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the
discovery. EMALL would provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
[[Page 51012]]
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].
Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated
during the operation of the airgun or the sub-bottom profiler have the
potential to result in the behavioral disturbance of some marine
mammals. NMFS believes that take from the operation of the vibracore is
unlikely but possible and is issuing take at the request of the
applicant. Thus, NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level B harassment
resulting from the operation of the sound sources for the proposed
survey based upon the current acoustic exposure criteria shown in Table
3.
Table 3--NMFS' Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion
Criterion definition Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury)..... Permanent 180 dB re 1
Threshold Shift microPa-m
(PTS) (Any level (cetaceans)/190
above that which dB re 1 microPa-m
is known to cause (pinnipeds) root
TTS). mean square (rms)
Level B Harassment.............. Behavioral 160 dB re 1
Disruption (for microPa-m (rms)
impulse noises) 120 dB re 1
Behavioral microPa-m (rms)
Disruption (for
continuous
noises).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS' practice is to apply the 120 or 160 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa
received level threshold (whichever is appropriate) for underwater
impulse sound levels to determine whether take by Level B harassment
occurs.
All four types of survey equipment addressed in the application
will be operated from the geophysical source vessels that will either
be moving steadily across the ocean surface (chirper, boomer, airgun),
or from station to station (vibracoring). The numbers of marine mammals
that might be exposed to sound pressure levels exceeding NMFS Level B
harassment threshold levels due to G&G surveys, without mitigation,
were determined by multiplying the average raw density for each species
by the daily ensonified area, and then multiplying that figure by the
number of days each sound source is estimated to be in use. The chirp
and boomer activities were combined into one calculation because they
will be operating concurrently, using the daily ensonified area of the
boomer, as it is a slightly larger isopleth. The exposure estimates for
each activity were then summed to provide total exposures for the
duration of the project. The exposure estimates for the activity are
detailed below. Although NMFS believes that take of marine mammals from
vibracore is extremely unlikely, it has been included in this
authorization out of an abundance of caution and at the request of the
applicant.
Ensonified Area
The ZOI is the area ensonified by a particular sound source greater
than threshold levels (120 dB for continuous and 160 dB for impulsive).
The radius of the ZOI for a particular equipment was determined by
applying the source sound pressure levels described in Table 6 of the
application to Collins et al.'s (2007) attenuation model of 18.4
Log(r)-0.00188 derived from Cook Inlet. For those equipment generating
loud underwater sound within the audible hearing range of marine
mammals (<200 kHz), the distance to threshold ranges between 184 m (604
ft) and 2.54 km (1.58 mi), with ZOIs ranging between 0.106 and 20.26
km2 (0.041-7.82 mi2) (Table 4).
Table 4--Summary of Distances to the NMFS Thresholds and Associated ZOIs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to Distance to
160 dB 120 dB 160 dB ZOI 120 dB ZOI
Survey equipment isopleth \1\ m isopleth \1\ km\2\ (mi\2\) km\2\ (mi\2\)
(ft) km (mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-bottom Profiler (Chirp)..................... 184 (604) N/A 0.106 (0.041) N/A
Sub-bottom Profiler (Boomer).................... 263 (863) N/A 0.217 (0.084) N/A
Airgun.......................................... 300 (984) N/A 0.283 (0.109) N/A
Vibracore....................................... N/A 2.54 (1.58) N/A 20.26 (7.82)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated by applying Collins et al. (2007) spreading formula to source levels in Table 2.
Marine Mammal Densities
Density estimates were derived for harbor porpoises, killer whales,
and harbor seals from NMFS 2002-2012 Cook Inlet survey data as
described below in Section 6.1.2.1 and shown in Table 8. The beluga
whale exposure estimates were calculated using density estimates from
Goetz et al. (2012) as described in Section 6.1.2.2.
Harbor Porpoise, Killer Whale, Harbor Seal
Density estimates were calculated for all marine mammals (except
beluga whales) by using aerial survey data collected by NMFS in Cook
Inlet between 2002 and 2012 (Rugh et al. 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b,
2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al. 2008, 2009, 2010; Hobbs
et al. 2011, Shelden et al. 2012) and compiled by Apache, Inc. (Apache
IHA application 2014). To estimate the average raw densities of marine
mammals, the total number of animals for each species observed over the
11-year survey period was divided by the total area of 65,889 km\2\
(25,540 mi\2\) surveyed over the 11 years. The aerial survey marine
mammal sightings, survey effort (area), and derived average raw
densities are provided in Table 5.
[[Page 51013]]
Table 5--Raw Density Estimates for Cook Inlet Marine Mammals Based on NMFS Aerial Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean raw density
Species Number of NMFS survey area animals/km \2\
animals km \2\ (mi \2\) (animals/mi \2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Porpoise........................................ 249 65,889 (25,440) 0.0033 (0.0098)
Killer Whale \1\....................................... 42 65,889 (25,440) 0.0008 (0.0017)
Harbor Seal............................................ 16,117 65,889 (25,440) 0.28 (0.6335)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Density is for all killer whales regardless of the stock although all killer whales in the upper Cook Inlet
are thought to be transient.
These raw densities were not corrected for animals missed during
the aerial surveys as no accurate correction factors are currently
available for these species; however, observer error may be limited as
the NMFS surveyors often circled marine mammal groups to get an
accurate count of group size. The harbor seal densities are probably
biased upwards given that a large number of the animals recorded were
of large groups hauled out at river mouths, and do not represent the
distribution in the waters where the G&G activity will actually occur.
However, these data are the most comprehensive available for Cook Inlet
harbor seals and therefore constitute the best available science.
Beluga Whale
Goetz et al. (2012) modeled aerial survey data collected by the
NMFS between 1993 and 2008 and developed specific beluga summer
densities for each 1-km2 cell of Cook Inlet. The results provide a more
precise estimate of beluga density at a given location than simply
multiplying all aerial observations by the total survey effort given
the clumped distribution of beluga whales during the summer months. To
develop a density estimate associated with planned action areas (i.e.,
Marine Terminal and pipeline survey areas), the ensonified area
associated with each activity was overlain a map of the 1-km density
cells, the cells falling within each ensonified area were quantified,
and an average cell density was calculated. The summary of the density
results is found in Table 9 in the application. The associated
ensonified areas and beluga density contours relative to the action
areas are shown in Table 6.
Table 6--Mean Raw Densities of Beluga Whales Within the Action Areas Based on Goetz et al. (2012) Cook Inlet
Beluga Whale Distribution Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean density Density range
Action area Number of cells (animals/km\2\) (animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Terminal Survey Area......................... 386 0.000166 0.000021-0.001512
Pipeline Survey Area................................ 571 0.011552 0.000275-0.156718
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Duration
The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program is expected to require
approximately 12 weeks (84 days) to complete. During approximately 63
of these days, the chirp and boomer sub-bottom profiler will produce
the loudest sound levels. Airgun use will occur during approximately 7
days and will occur only near the proposed Marine Terminal. The airgun
activity will occur during the summer when beluga whale use of Cook
Inlet is primarily concentrated near the Susitna Delta, approximately
65 km (40 mi) north of the airgun survey area. Vibracoring, with its
large ZOI, will occur intermittently over approximately 14 days. The
applicant provided an estimate of 50 miles per day that the survey
vessel could travel.
Exposure Calculations
The numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed to sound
pressure levels exceeding NMFS Level B harassment threshold levels due
to G&G surveys, without mitigation, were determined by multiplying the
average raw density for each species by the daily ensonified area, then
multiplying by the number of days each sound source is estimated to be
in use. While this method produces a good estimate of the number of
instances of take, it is likely an overestimate of the number of
individual marine mammals taken because it assumes that entirely new
individuals are taken on subsequent days and that no animals are taken
more than once. The chirp and boomer activities were combined to
calculate exposure from days of activities in the Upper Cook Inlet area
and the Lower Cook Inlet area because they will be operating
concurrently. The exposure estimates for each activity were then summed
to provide total exposures for the duration of the project. The
exposure estimates for the activity are detailed below.
Table 7--Exposure Estimates for Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Density Boomer--Upper Boomer--Lower Airgun Vibracore--Upper Vibracore--Lower Total Authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga....................... 0.0012 .00017 18.18 0.18 0.056 5.15 0.11 23.69 24
Killer whale................. 0.00082 1.29 0.91 0.28 0.37 0.55 3.39 5
Harbor seal.................. 0.28 444.52 312.37 95.99 125.92 188.89 1,167.68 1,168
Harbor porpoise.............. 0.0033 5.18 3.64 1.12 1.47 2.20 13.60 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS recognizes that in addition to what was mentioned above, there
are other factors that contribute to an overestimate of exposures,,
e.g., the fact that many of these technologies will be operating
simultaneously, and not
[[Page 51014]]
exposing animals in separate instances for the duration of the survey
period. Additionally, the beamwidth and tilt angle of the sub-bottom
profiler are not factored into the characterization of the sound field,
making it conservative and large, creating additional overestimates in
take estimation.
The possibility of Level A exposure was analyzed, however the
distances to 180 dB/190 dB isopleths are incredibly small, ranging from
0 to 26 meters. The number of exposures, without accounting for
mitigation or likely avoidance of louder sounds, is small for these
zones, and with mitigation and the likelihood of detecting marine
mammals within this small area combined with the likelihood of
avoidance, it is likely these takes can be avoided. The only technology
that would not shutdown is the vibracore, which has a distance to Level
A isopleth (180 dB) of 3 meters. Therefore, authorization of Level A
take is not necessary.
NMFS will authorize the following takes by Level B harassment:
Table 8--Authorizations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure Take
Species estimate authorized Percent of stock or population Population trend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga................................. 23.69 24 7.06................................... Decreasing.
Killer whale........................... 3.39 5 1.44 transient......................... Transient--Stable.
Harbor seal............................ 1,167.68 1,168 5.10................................... Stable.
Harbor porpoise........................ 13.60 20 0.064.................................. No reliable info.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis and 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). The lack of
likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival
(i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact
finding. Thus, an estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through 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, 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.
To avoid repetition, except where otherwise identified, the
discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table
8, given that the anticipated effects of this project on marine mammals
are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there is
information about specific impacts to, or about the size, status, or
structure of, any species or stock that would lead to a different
analysis for this activity, species-specific factors are identified and
analyzed.
In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers:
The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or
mortalities;
The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B
harassment; and
The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to
areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative
impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions
when added to baseline data);
The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e.,
depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative
to the size of the population);
Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/
survival; and
The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to
reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
As discussed in the Potential Effects section, temporary or
permanent threshold shift, non-auditory physical or physiological
effects, ship strike, entanglement are not expected to occur. Given the
required mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries or mortalities
are anticipated to occur to any species as a result of EMALL's proposed
survey in Cook Inlet, and none are authorized. Animals in the area are
not expected to incur hearing impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-
auditory physiological effects due to low source levels and the fact
that most marine mammals would more likely avoid a loud sound source
rather than swim in such close proximity as to result in TTS or PTS.
The most likely effect from the proposed action is localized, short-
term behavioral disturbance from active acoustic sources. The number of
takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to
short-term Level B behavioral harassment for all stocks for which take
is authorized. This is largely due to the short time scale of the
proposed activity, the low source levels for many of the technologies
proposed to be used, as well as the required mitigation. The
technologies do not operate continuously over a 24-hour period. Rather,
airguns are operational for a few hours at a time for 7 days, with the
sub-bottom profiler chirp and boomer operating for 63 days, and the
vibracore operating over 14 days.
The addition of five vessels, and noise due to vessel operations
associated with the survey, would not be outside the present experience
of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may increase locally.
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.
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.'' Shut-downs are required for belugas and groups of killer
whales or harbor porpoises when they approach the 160dB disturbance
zone, to further reduce potential impacts to these populations. Visual
observation by trained PSOs is also implemented to reduce the impact of
the proposed
[[Page 51015]]
activity by informing operators of marine mammals approaching the
relevant disturbance or injury zones. 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.
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. This
information supports the idea that the numerated takes for odonotocetes
are likely on the lower end of severity in the terms of responses that
rise to the level of a take.
Beluga Whales
Cook Inlet beluga whales are listed as endangered under the ESA.
This stock is 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. The authorization of take by Level B harassment
of 24 Cook Inlet beluga whales represents 7.06 percent of the
population.
Belugas in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer appear to be fairly
responsive to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10-20 km
(6-12 mi) of seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al.,
2005). However, as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are more accustomed
to anthropogenic sound than beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea.
Therefore, the results from the Beaufort Sea surveys do not directly
translate to potential reactions of Cook Inlet beluga whales. Also, due
to the dispersed distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during
winter and the concentration of beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet from
late April through early fall, belugas would likely occur in small
numbers in the majority of EMALL's proposed survey area during the
majority of EMALL's annual operational timeframe of August through
December. For the same reason, as well as the mitigation measure that
requires shutting down for belugas seen approaching the 160dB
disturbance zone, and the likelihood of avoidance at high levels, it is
unlikely that animals would be exposed to received levels capable of
causing injury.
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 from the two source
vessels, tug and jack-up rig and associated vessel noise is not
expected to have effects that could cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations, given
that vessels will operate for a maximum of 84 days.
In addition, NMFS has seasonally restricted survey operations in
the area known to be important for beluga whale feeding, calving, or
nursing. The primary location for these biological life functions
occurs in the Susitna Delta region of upper Cook Inlet. NMFS required
EMALL to implement a 16 km (10 mi) seasonal exclusion from 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.
Killer Whales
The authorization of take by Level B harassment of 5 killer whales
represents only 1.44 percent of the population. Killer whales are not
encountered as frequently in Cook Inlet as some of the other species in
this analysis, however when sighted they are usually in groups. The
addition of a mitigation measure to shutdown if a group of 5 or more
killer whales is seen approaching the 160 dB zone is intended to
minimize any impact to an aggregation of killer whales if encountered.
The killer whales in the survey area are also thought to be transient
killer whales and therefore rely on the habitat in the EMALL survey
area less than other resident species.
Harbor Porpoise
The authorization of take by Level B harassment for 20 harbor
porpoises represents only 0.064 percent of the population. Harbor
porpoises are among the most sensitive marine mammal species with
regard to behavioral response and anthropogenic noise. They are known
to exhibit behavioral responses to operation of seismic airguns,
pingers, and other technologies at low thresholds. However, they are
abundant in Cook Inlet and therefore the authorized take is unlikely to
affect recruitment or status of the population in any way. In addition,
mitigation measures include shutdowns for groups of more than 5 harbor
porpoises that will minimize the amount of take to the local harbor
porpoise population. This mitigation as well as the short duration and
low source levels of the proposed activity will reduce the impact to
the harbor porpoises found in Cook Inlet.
Harbor Seal
The authorization of take by Level B harassment for 1,168 harbor
seals represents only 5.1% of a stable population. Observations during
other anthropogenic activities in Cook Inlet have reported large
congregations of harbor seals hauling out in upper Cook Inlet. However,
mitigation measures, such as vessel speed, course alteration, and
visual monitoring, and time-area restrictions will be implemented to
help reduce impacts to the animals. Additionally, this activity does
not encompass a large number of known harbor seal haulouts,
particularly as this activity proposes operations traversing across the
Inlet, as opposed to entirely nearshore activities. While some harbor
seals will likely be exposed, the required mitigation along with their
smaller aggregations in water than on shore should minimize impacts to
the harbor seal population. Additionally, the short duration of the
survey, and the use of visual observers to inform shutdowns and ramp up
delays should further reduce the severity of behavioral reactions to
Cook Inlet harbor seals. Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds
produced by this phase of EMALL's proposed survey is not anticipated to
have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival on those
species or stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total annual marine mammal
take from EMALL's proposed survey will have a negligible impact on the
affected marine mammal species or stocks (see Table 8).
Although NMFS believes it is unlikely the operation of the
vibracore would result in the take of marine mammals and did not
propose to authorize take by vibracore in the Federal Register notice
of the proposed Authorization, we note here that take from vibracoring
activities has been included in the Final Authorization out of an
abundance of caution and at the request of the applicant. Take by Level
B harassment from vibracoring accounts for approximately 25 percent of
the take authorized for the entire survey, ranging from 0.9 killer
whales to 313 harbor seals. The vibracoring activity is
[[Page 51016]]
proposed to occur at 55 locations across the Inlet from the Forelands,
north to the upper end of Cook Inlet. However, the actual noise-
producing activity will only occur for only 90 seconds at a time,
during which PSOs will be observing for marine mammals. The limited
scope and duration of vibracoring makes it extremely unlikely that take
by Level B harassment would occur during the vibracore portion of the
operation. Nonetheless, we included the potential take from vibracore
in our analysis above, and as we indicated, we found that there would
be a negligible impact on the affect species or stocks from the total
takes, including any that are authorized for vibracore.
Small Numbers Analysis
The requested takes authorized annually represent 7.06 percent of
the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 340 animals
(Allen and Angliss, 2014), 1.44 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Island and Bering Sea stock of killer whales (345 transients), and
0.064 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately 31,046
harbor porpoises. The take requests presented for harbor seals
represent 5.02 percent of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock of
approximately 22,900 animals. These take estimates represent small
numbers relative to the affected species or stock sizes as shown in
Table 8.
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 EMALL'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 are not common in the survey
area; (3) the required mitigation requirements, which provide spatio-
temporal limitations that avoid impacts to large numbers of belugas
feeding and calving in the Susitna Delta; (4) the required monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures described earlier in this document
for all marine mammal species that will reduce the amount of takes; and
(5) monitoring results from previous activities that indicated low
numbers of beluga whale sightings within the Level B disturbance
exclusion zone and low levels of Level B harassment takes of other
marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS determined that the numbers of animals
likely to be taken are small.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
Relevant Subsistence Uses
The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the
nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an
integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native
communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with
materials for cultural handicrafts, and the hunting itself perpetuates
Native traditions by transmitting traditional skills and knowledge to
younger generations (NOAA, 2007).
The Cook Inlet beluga whale has traditionally been hunted by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the
1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary
subsistence hunters of Cook Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s and
1990s, Alaska Natives from villages in the western, northwestern, and
North Slope regions of Alaska either moved to or visited the south
central region and participated in the yearly subsistence harvest
(Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per year
(range 21-123) were taken in this harvest, including those successfully
taken for food and those struck and lost. NMFS concluded that this
number was high enough to account for the estimated 14 percent annual
decline in the population during this time (Hobbs et al., 2008). Actual
mortality may have been higher, given the difficulty of estimating the
number of whales struck and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a
moratorium was enacted (Pub. L. 106-31) prohibiting the subsistence
take of Cook Inlet beluga whales except through a cooperative agreement
between NMFS and the affected Alaska Native organizations. Since the
Cook Inlet beluga whale harvest was regulated in 1999 requiring
cooperative agreements, five beluga whales have been struck and
harvested. Those beluga whales were harvested in 2001 (one animal),
2002 (one animal), 2003 (one animal), and 2005 (two animals). The
Native Village of Tyonek agreed not to hunt or request a hunt in 2007,
when no 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 Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be taken
by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That rule
prohibits harvest for a 5-year interval period if the average stock
abundance of Cook Inlet beluga whales over the prior five-year interval
is below 350 whales. Harvest levels for the current 5-year planning
interval (2013-2017) are zero because the average stock abundance for
the previous five-year period (2008-2012) was below 350 whales. Based
on the average abundance over the 2002-2007 period, no hunt occurred
between 2008 and 2012 (NMFS, 2008a). The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal
Council, which managed the Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS,
was disbanded by a unanimous vote of the Tribes' representatives on
June 20, 2012. At this time, no harvest is expected in 2015 or, likely,
in 2016.
Data on the harvest of other marine mammals in Cook Inlet are
lacking. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor
seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine
mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of
Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest
in Cook Inlet.
There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in
Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives
who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of
the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna. 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).
Potential Impacts on Availability for Subsistence Uses
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the
taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability
of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. NMFS has
defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to
meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or
avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or
(iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the
subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot
[[Page 51017]]
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 survey. Marine mammals could be behaviorally
harassed and either become more difficult to hunt or temporarily
abandon traditional hunting grounds. However, the proposed survey will
not have any impacts to beluga harvests as none currently occur in Cook
Inlet. Additionally, subsistence harvests of other marine mammal
species are limited in Cook Inlet.
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence
Hunts
The entire upper Cook unit and a portion of the lower Cook unit
falls north of 60[deg] N., or within the region NMFS has designated as
an Arctic subsistence use area. EMALL provided detailed information in
Section 8 of their application regarding their plan to cooperate with
local subsistence users and stakeholders regarding the potential
effects of their proposed activity. There are several villages in
EMALL's proposed project area that have traditionally hunted marine
mammals, primarily harbor seals. Tyonek is the only tribal village in
upper Cook Inlet with a tradition of hunting marine mammals, in this
case harbor seals and beluga whales. However, for either species the
annual recorded harvest since the 1980s has averaged about one or fewer
of either species (Fall et al. 1984, Wolfe et al. 2009, SRBA and HC
2011), and there is currently a moratorium on subsistence harvest of
belugas. Further, many of the seals that are harvested are done
incidentally to salmon fishing or moose hunting (Fall et al. 1984,
Merrill and Orpheim 2013), often near the mouths of the Susitna Delta
rivers (Fall et al. 1984) north of EMALL's proposed seismic survey
area.
Villages in lower Cook Inlet adjacent to EMALL's proposed survey
area (Kenai, Salamatof, and Nikiski) have either not traditionally
hunted beluga whales, or at least not in recent years, and rarely do
they harvest sea lions. These villages more commonly harvest harbor
seals, with Kenai reporting an average of about 13 per year between
1992 and 2008 (Wolfe et al. 2009). According to Fall et al. (1984),
many of the seals harvested by hunters from these villages were taken
on the west side of the inlet during hunting excursions for moose and
black bears.
Although marine mammals remain an important subsistence resource in
Cook Inlet, the number of animals annually harvested is low, and are
primarily harbor seals. Much of the harbor seal harvest occurs
incidental to other fishing and hunting activities, and at areas
outside of the EMALL's proposed survey areas such as the Susitna Delta
or the west side of lower Cook Inlet. Also, EMALL is unlikely to
conduct activity in the vicinity of any of the river mouths where large
numbers of seals haul out.
EMALL and NMFS recognize the importance of ensuring that Alaska
Natives and federally recognized tribes are informed, engaged, and
involved during the permitting process and will continue to work with
the Alaska Natives and tribes to discuss operations and activities.
Prior to offshore activities EMALL was to consult with nearby
communities such as Tyonek, Salamatof, and the Kenaitze Indian Tribe to
attend and present the program description prior to operations within
those areas. These meetings were conducted and no issues related to
subsistence use of marine mammals was raised.
If a conflict does occur with project activities involving
subsistence or fishing, the project manager will immediately contact
the affected party to resolve the conflict.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
The project will not have any effect on beluga whale harvests
because no beluga harvest will take place in 2015. Additionally, the
proposed seismic survey area is not an important native subsistence
site for other subsistence species of marine mammals thus, the number
harvested is expected to be extremely low. The timing and location of
subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor seals may coincide with
EMALL's project, but because this subsistence hunt is conducted
opportunistically and at such a low level (NMFS, 2013c), EMALL's
program is not expected to have an impact on the subsistence use of
harbor seals. Moreover, the proposed survey would result in only
temporary disturbances. Accordingly, the specified activity would not
impact the availability of these other marine mammal species for
subsistence uses.
NMFS anticipates that any effects from EMALL's proposed 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 required mitigation
and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from EMALL's proposed
activities.
Endangered Species Act
There is one marine mammal species listed as endangered under the
ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the project area: The Cook
Inlet beluga whale. In addition, the action could occur within 10 miles
of designated critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS's
Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with NMFS'
Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA.
This consultation concluded on August 13, 2015, when a Biological
Opinion was issued. The Biological Opinion determined that the issuance
of an IHA is not likely to jeapordize the continued existence of the
Cook Inlet beluga whales or destroy or adversely modify Cook Inlet
beluga whale critical habitat. Finally, the Alaska region issued an
Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for Cook Inlet beluga whales. The ITS
contains reasonable and prudent measures implemented by the terms and
conditions to minimize the effect of this take.
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS prepared an EA that includes an analysis of potential
environmental effects associated with NMFS' issuance of an IHA to EMALL
to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a geophysical and
geotechnical survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS has finalized
the EA and prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact for this action.
Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not
necessary.
[[Page 51018]]
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to
Exxon Mobil Alaska LNG LLC (EMALL) for taking marine mammals incidental
to a geophysical and geotechnical survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: August 17, 2015.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20605 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P