50990 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE An authorization for incidental scan sonar, geophysical resistivity takings shall be granted if NMFS finds meters, and magnetometer to National Oceanic and Atmospheric that the taking will have a negligible characterize the bottom surface and Administration impact on the species or stock(s), will subsurface. The planned shallow RIN 0648–XE018 not have an unmitigable adverse impact geotechnical investigations include on the availability of the species or vibracoring, sediment grab sampling, Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to stock(s) for subsistence uses (where and piezo-cone penetration testing Specified Activities; Taking Marine relevant), and if the permissible (PCPT) to directly evaluate seabed Mammals Incidental to Geophysical methods of taking and requirements features and soil conditions. and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet, pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring Geotechnical borings are planned at Alaska and reporting of such takings are set potential shoreline crossings and in the forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible terminal boring subarea within the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an Marine Terminal survey area, and will Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and impact resulting from the specified be used to collect information on the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), activity that cannot be reasonably mechanical properties of in-situ soils to Commerce. expected to, and is not reasonably likely support feasibility studies for ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental to, adversely affect the species or stock construction crossing techniques and harassment authorization. through effects on annual rates of decisions on siting and design of pilings, dolphins, and other marine SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing an recruitment or survival.’’ structures. Geophysical resistivity Authorization in response to a request Except with respect to certain imaging will be conducted at the from ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC activities not pertinent here, the MMPA potential shoreline crossings. Shear (EMALL) for an authorization to take defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of wave velocity profiles (downhole marine mammals, by harassment, pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) geophysics) will be conducted within incidental to a geophysical and has the potential to injure a marine some of the boreholes. Further details of geotechnical survey in Cook Inlet, AK, mammal or marine mammal stock in the the planned operations are provided for 84 days between August 14, 2015 wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has below. and August 13, 2016. the potential to disturb a marine DATES: Effective August 14, 2015, mammal or marine mammal stock in the Dates and Duration through August 13, 2016. wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, Geophysical and geotechnical (G&G) ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, surveys that do not involve equipment Incidental Harrassment Authorization feeding, or sheltering [Level B that could acoustically harass listed (IHA; Authorization), application, and marine mammals began in May 2015. harassment]. associated Environmental Assessment These surveys include echo sounders (EA) and Finding of No Significant Summary of Request and side scan sonar surveys operating at Impact (FONSI) may be obtained by On February 4, 2015, NMFS received frequencies above the hearing range of writing to Jolie Harrison, Division Chief, an application from EMALL for the local marine mammals and geotechnical Permits and Conservation Division, taking of marine mammals incidental to borings, which are not expected to Office of Protected Resources, National a geotechnical and geophysical survey produce underwater noise exceeding Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East- in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS determined ambient. The remaining surveys, West Highway, Silver Spring, MD that the application was adequate and including use of sub-bottom profilers 20910, telephoning the contact listed complete on June 8, 2015. and the small airgun, will begin soon below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION EMALL proposes to conduct a after receipt of the IHA. These activities CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: geophysical and geotechnical survey in would be scheduled in such a manner http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ Cook Inlet to investigate the technical as to minimize potential effects to incidental.htm. Documents cited in this suitability of a pipeline study corridor marine mammals, subsistence activities, notice may also be viewed, by across Cook Inlet and potential marine and other users of Cook Inlet waters. It appointment, during regular business is expected that approximately 12 weeks hours, at the aforementioned address. terminal locations near Nikiski. The proposed activity would occur for 12 (84 work days) are required to complete FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara weeks during the 2015 open water the G&G Program. The work days would Young, Office of Protected Resources, season after August 14, 2015. The not all be consecutive due to weather, NMFS, (301) 427–8484. following specific aspects of the rest days, and any timing restrictions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: proposed activities are likely to result in Specified Geographic Region Background the take of marine mammals: Use of a The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program seismic airgun, sub-bottom profiler Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the will include geophysical surveys, MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct (chirp and boomer), and potentially a shallow geotechnical investigations, and the Secretary of Commerce to allow, vibracore. Take, by Level B Harassment geotechnical borings. Two separate upon request, the incidental, but not only, of individuals of four species of areas will be investigated and are shown intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals is anticipated to result in Figure 1 of the application: The marine mammals by U.S. citizens who from the specified activities. pipeline survey area and the Marine engage in a specified activity (other than Description of the Specified Activity Terminal survey area (which includes commercial fishing) within a specified an LNG carrier approach zone). The geographical region if certain findings Overview pipeline survey area runs from the are made and either regulations are The planned geophysical surveys Kenai Peninsula, across the Inlet, up to issued or, if the taking is limited to involve remote sensors including single Beluga, also considered the Upper Inlet. harassment, a notice of a proposed beam echo sounder, multibeam echo The Terminal area will include an area authorization is provided to the public sounder, sub-bottom profiler (chirp and west and south of Nikiski, the northern for review. boomer), 0.983 L (60 in3) airgun, side edge of what is considered the Lower

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 50991

Inlet. The G&G Program survey areas www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ practicable, including measures to (also referred to as the action area or incidental.htm. Following is a summary shutdown active acoustic sources if any action areas) are larger than the of the public comments and NMFS’ beluga whale is observed approaching proposed pipeline route and the Marine responses. or within the Level B harassment zone Terminal site to ensure detection of all Comment 1: One private citizen and restricting activities within a 10 mi potential hazards, or to identify areas requested that we deny issuance of the (16 km) radius of the Susitna Delta from free of hazards. This provides siting IHA because marine mammals would be April 15 through October 15, which is flexibility should the pipeline corridor killed as a result of the survey. an important area for beluga feeding and or Marine Terminal sites need to be Response: The survey is not expected calving in the spring and summer adjusted to avoid existing hazards. to result in the death of any marine months. This shutdown measure is • Pipeline Survey Area—The mammal species, and no such take is more restrictive than the standard proposed pipeline survey area (Figure 1) authorized. Extensive analysis of the shutdown measures typically applied, crosses Cook Inlet from Boulder Point proposed geotechnical and geophysical and combined with the Susitna Delta on the Kenai Peninsula across to Shorty survey was conducted in accordance exclusion (minimizing adverse effects to Creek about halfway between the village with the MMPA, Endangered Species foraging), is expected to reduce both the of Tyonek and the Beluga River. This Act (ESA), and National Environmental scope and severity of potential survey area is approximately 45 km (28 Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to those harassment takes, minimizing impacts mi) in length along the corridor statutes, we analyzed the impacts of the from the harassment that would centerline and averages about 13 km (8 survey activities to marine mammals adversely affect reproductive rates or mi) wide. The total survey area is 541 (including those listed as threatened or survivorship. km2 (209 mi2). The pipeline survey area endangered under the ESA), their Our analysis indicates that issuance of includes a subarea where vibracores habitat (including critical habitat this IHA will not contribute to or will be conducted in addition to the designated under the ESA), and to the worsen the observed decline of the Cook geophysical surveys and shallow availability of marine mammals for Inlet beluga whale population. geotechnical investigations. taking for subsistence uses. The MMPA Additionally, the ESA Biological • Marine Terminal Survey Area—The analysis revealed that the activities Opinion determined that the issuance of proposed Marine Terminal survey area would have a negligible impact on an IHA is not likely to jeopardize the (Figure 1), encompassing 371 km2 (143 affected marine mammal species or continued existence of the Cook Inlet mi2), is located near Nikiski where stocks and would not have an beluga whales or adversely modify Cook potential sites and vessel routes for the unmitigable adverse impact on the Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. The Marine Terminal are being investigated. availability of marine mammals for Biological Opinion also outlined Terms The Marine Terminal survey area taking for subsistence uses. The ESA and Conditions and Reasonable and includes two subareas: A seismic survey analysis concluded that the activities Prudent Measures to reduce impacts, subarea where the airgun will be likely would not jeopardize the which have been incorporated into the operated in addition to the other continued existence of ESA-listed IHA. Therefore, based on the analysis of geophysical equipment, and a terminal species or destroy or adversely modify potential effects, the parameters of the boring subarea where geotechnical designated critical habitat. The NEPA survey, and the rigorous mitigation and boreholes will be drilled in addition to analysis concluded that there would not monitoring program, NMFS determined the geophysical survey and shallow be a significant impact on the human that the activity would have a negligible geotechnical investigations. The seismic environment. impact on the population. survey subarea encompasses 25 km2 Comment 2: The MMC and the NRDC Moreover, the survey would take by (8.5 mi2) and the terminal boring recommend that NMFS defer issuance Level B harrassment only small subarea encompasses 12 km2 (4.6 mi2). of any Authorization to EMALL or other numbers of marine mammals relative to applicants until NMFS concludes that their population sizes. As described in Detailed Description of Activities those activities would affect no more the proposed IHA Federal Register The Notice of Proposed IHA (80 FR than a small number of Cook Inlet notice, NMFS used a method that 37465, June 30, 2015) contains a full beluga whales with a negligible impact incorporates density of marine detailed description of the geotechnical on the population. mammals overlaid with the anticipated and geophysical survey, including the Response: In accordance with our ensonified area and the number of days sources proposed to be used and vessel implementing regulations at 50 CFR of the operation to calculate an details. That information has not 216.104(c), we use the best available estimated number of takes for belugas. changed and is therefore not repeated scientific information to determine The number of belugas likely to be taken here. whether the taking by the specified represents 7.04% of the population, activity within the specified geographic which NMFS considers small. In Comments and Responses region will have a negligible impact on addition to this quantitative evaluation, A Notice of Proposed IHA was the species or stock and will not have NMFS has also considered qualitative published in the Federal Register on an unmitigable adverse impact on the factors that further support the ‘‘small June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37465) for public availability of such species or stock for numbers’’ determination, including: (1) comment. During the 30-day public subsistence uses. Based on the best The seasonal distribution and habitat comment period, NMFS received four scientific information available, NMFS use patterns of Cook Inlet beluga comment letters from the following: The determined that the impacts of the whales, which suggest that for much of Marine Mammal Commission (MMC); geotechnical and geophysical survey the time only a small portion of the the Natural Resource Defense Counsel program, which are primarily acoustic population would be accessible to (NRDC); Friends of Animals (FOA); and in nature, would meet these standards. impacts from EMALL’s activity, as most one private citizen. Moreover, EMALL proposed and NMFS animals are concentrated in upper Cook All of the public comment letters has required in the IHA a rigorous Inlet; and (2) the mitigation received on the Notice of Proposed IHA mitigation plan to reduce impacts to requirements, which provide spatio- (80 FR 37465, June 30, 2015) are Cook Inlet beluga whales and other temporal limitations that avoid impacts available on the internet at: http:// marine mammals to the lowest level to large numbers of animals feeding and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 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 proposed for each open water season characteristics that more closely exposures to sound levels associated until the EIS is complete. resemble those of impulsive sounds with Level B harassment. Based on all Comment 5: The MMC, NRDC, and than non-impulsive sounds. With regard of this information, NMFS determined FOA commented on an error in beluga to behavioral thresholds, we therefore that the number of beluga whales likely density information used to estimate the consider the temporal and spectral to be taken is small. See response to number of beluga exposures in the characteristics of sub-bottom profiler Comment 3 and our small numbers proposed authorization. The MMC and signals to more closely resemble those analysis later in this document for more NRDC recommend that NMFS provide of an impulse sound rather than a information about the small numbers public notice of the revised number of continuous sound. The 160-dB determination for beluga whales and the beluga whale takes that NMFS proposes threshold is typically associated with other marine mammal species. to authorize along with a revised impulsive sources. Comment 3: The MMC recommends analysis. The MMC suggests that, for certain that before issuing any Authorizations, Response: NMFS acknowledges the sources considered here, the interval NMFS develop clear criteria for error in beluga density information and between pulses is so small it should be determining what constitutes small has revised the calculations used for considered continuous. However, a sub- numbers and negligible impact for the take estimation presented in the Federal bottom profiler chirp’s ‘‘rapid staccato’’ purpose of authorizing incidental take Register notice for the proposed IHA. of pulse trains is emitted in a similar of marine mammals. The correction results in a revised fashion as odontocete echolocation click Response: NMFS consistently assesses exposure estimate of 30 belugas. trains. Research indicates that marine clearly articulated factors in making However, following discussions with mammals, in general, have extremely both the small numbers and negligible the applicant, the MMC, and the Alaska fine auditory temporal resolution and impact findings in our actions, and Regional Office, NMFS has determined can detect each signal separately (e.g., those findings are supported for this that exposures due to the chirp will not Au et al., 1988; Dolphin et al., 1995; action as described in this notice. be included in the Authorization, as the Supin and Popov, 1995; Mooney et al., However, we are currently assessing our chirp and the boomer will be operating 2009), especially for species with criteria for determining what constitutes concurrently and the 160-dB isopleth of echolocation capabilities. Therefore, it ‘‘small numbers’’ and are working the boomer is larger than that of the is highly unlikely that marine mammals towards the development of an chirp. Therefore, NMFS is authorizing would perceive sub-bottom profiler improved, and more quantitative, take by Level B harrassment of only 24 signals as being continuous. analytical framework for determining belugas. This new exposure estimate In conclusion, sub-bottom profiler whether an activity will have a represents 7.06% of the population, signals are intermittent rather than ‘‘negligible impact’’ for the purpose of whereas the original estimate of 14 continuous signals, and the fine authorizing takes of marine mammals. represented 4.12% of the population. temporal resolution of the marine We fully intend to engage the MMC in This difference does not substantively mammal auditory system allows them to these processes at the appropriate time. affect NMFS’ analysis of effects, nor perceive these sounds as such. Further, Comment 4: The MMC and NRDC does it change the small numbers or the physical characteristics of these recommend that NMFS finalize and negligible impact determinations, and signals indicate a greater similarity to implement the beluga whale recovery therefore it does not merit a second the way that intermittent, impulsive plan, issue its programmatic EIS, and public comment period. sounds are received. Therefore, the 160- establish annual limits on the types of Comment 6: The MMC and NRDC dB threshold (typically associated with takes authorized for sound-producing recommend that until behavior impulsive sources) is more appropriate activities in Cook Inlet before issuing thresholds are updated, that NMFS than the 120-dB threshold (typically additional Authorizations. require applicants to use the 120-dB associated with continuous sources) for Response: NMFS recognizes the rather than 160-dB threshold for sub- estimating takes by behavioral release of the draft recovery plan and, as bottom profilers. harassment incidental to use of such an agency, will address and implement Response: The 120-dB threshold is sources. appropriate recommendations made in typically associated with continuous We agree with the MMC’c the recovery plan when the draft sources. Continuous sounds are those recommendation to revise existing becomes a Final Recovery Plan, after whose sound pressure level remains acoustic criteria and thresholds as NMFS has been able to incorporate above that of the ambient sound, with necessary to specify threshold levels public comment on the draft version. negligibly small fluctuations in level that would be more appropriate for a Further, NMFS is making progress (NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005). Intermittent wider range of sound sources, and are toward the development of the Cook sounds are defined as sounds with currently in the process of producing Inlet EIS to analyze the environmental interrupted levels of low or no sound such revisions. In particular, NMFS impacts of issuing Incidental Take (NIOSH, 1998). Sub-bottom profiler recognizes the importance of context Authorizations (ITAs) pursuant to the signals are intermittent sounds. (e.g., behavioral state of the animals, Marine Mammal Protection Act Intermittent sounds can further be distance) in behavioral responses. The (MMPA) for the taking of marine defined as either impulsive or non- current behavioral categorization (i.e., mammals incidental to anthropogenic impulsive. Impulsive sounds have been impulse vs. continuous) does not activities in the waters of Cook Inlet, defined as sounds which are typically account for context and is not AK, but in the meanwhile is also transient, brief (<1 sec), broadband, and appropriate for all sound sources. Thus, requesting that all Cook Inlet applicants consist of a high peak pressure with updated NOAA Acoustic Guidance requesting authorizations for the 2016 rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ open water season send in their 1986; NIOSH, 1998). Non-impulsive guidelines.htm), once completed, will applications by October 1, 2015. This sounds typically have more gradual rise more appropriately categorize will enable NMFS to conduct a times and longer decays (ANSI, 1995; behavioral harassment criteria by Programmatic EA for these activities NIOSH, 1998). Sub-bottom profiler activity type. NOAA recognizes, as new and better analyze the cumulative signals have durations that are typically science becomes available, that our effects from all of the authorizations very brief (<1 sec), with temporal current categorizations (i.e., impulse vs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 50993

continuous) may not fully encompass levels. This change has been noted in (Richardson et al., 1985, 1986) the complexity associated with the Authorization text. responding to seismic airguns (e.g., behavioral responses (i.e., context, etc.) Comment 9: The MMC and NRDC impulsive sound source). There is more and are working toward addressing recommend that NMFS allow sufficient recent information bearing on these issues in future acoustic guidance. time between the close of the comment behavioral reactions to seismic airguns, However, in the meanwhile, while our period and issuance of an Authorization but while those data illustrate how current behavioral acoustic thresholds for NMFS to analyze, consider, and complex and context-dependent the may not fully account for some of the respond fully to comments received and relationship is between the two, they do differences observed across taxa and incorporate changes as appropriate. not clearly suggest that there is a more contexts, they still serve as somewhat Response: NMFS acknowledges that appropriate level than 160dB to serve as conservative generalized indicators of the time between the close of public general behavioral harassment threshold received levels at which we anticipate comment and the target date for issuing for multiple taxa. See 75 FR 49710, behavioral harassment, and are not the Authorization is short. However, 49716 (August 13, 2010) (IHA for Shell undermined by newer information. NMFS fully considered and responded seismic survey in Alaska). Further, it is Comment 7: The MMC and NRDC to all comments before issuing the not a matter of merely replacing the recommend that prior to issuance of the Authorization, and incorporated existing threshold with a new one. Final Authorization, NMFS include changes as appropriate (i.e., see NOAA is working to develop more taking by Level B harassment of response to Comment 8). sophisticated draft guidance for humpback whales, gray whales, minke Comment 10: The NRDC and FOA determining impacts from acoustic whales, Dall’s porpoise, and Steller sea comment that NEPA mandates that sources, including information for lion. NMFS may not authorize activities determining Level B harassment Response: The issuance of an while a programmatic EIS is underway. thresholds. Due to the complexity of the Authorization to an applicant is a The NRDC references 40 CFR 1506.1. task, any guidance will require a request-based process. On the one hand, Response: NMFS acknowledges that it rigorous review that includes internal if NMFS believes that marine mammals is preparing an EIS for incidental take agency review, public notice and will be taken that are not identified by authorizations in Cook Inlet, AK (79 FR comment, and additional external peer the applicant, we will work with the 61616; October 14, 2014). However, review before any final product is applicant to modify the request to NMFS is undertaking this published. In the meantime, and taking ensure inclusion of affected species. On environmental analysis voluntarily as a into consideration the facts and the other hand, applicants sometimes decision support tool for processing available science, NMFS determined it request take of a small number of MMPA ITA requests in Cook Inlet. The is reasonable to use the 160 dB species that NMFS believes are unlikely programmatic EIS is meant to address threshold for estimating takes of marine to be encountered but NMFS will anticipated future levels of activity in mammals in Cook Inlet by Level B authorize take of those species as long Cook Inlet, which may include increases harassment. However, we discuss the as the necessary findings can be made. in activity, not a specific proposed science on this issue qualitatively in our NMFS acknowledges that it has program or project. NMFS will continue analysis of potential effects to marine authorized the take of the species to prepare EAs or EISs, as appropriate, mammals. identified by commenters that occur for specific individual applications for Comment 12: The NRDC comments infrequently in Cook Inlet in other Incidental Take Authorizations (ITA) at that NMFS should require the use of Authorizations. However, in those this time. Consistent with its obligations alternative technologies, including instances, the applicant requested take under NEPA, NMFS prepared an EA quieting technologies, as well as of those species and NMFS analyzed the (including an analysis of cumulative adopting additional time-area closures. requests submitted. EMALL believes, effects) prior to issuing the Response: NMFS responds to this and NMFS concurs, that with the Authorization to EMALL and comment as part of the response to required monitoring, small zones of determined that issuance of the Comment 14 below. influence, and short operating period (as Authorization would not significantly Comment 13: The NRDC comments compared to previous activities impact the quality of the human that the suggestion that Cook Inlet authorized in Cook Inlet), the activities environment. belugas are habituated to certain levels are unlikely to result in the take any of Comment 11: The NRDC commented of anthropogenic activity is outdated, the species identified by the that NMFS should not issue an given a study by Kendall et al. (2014) on commenters. Moreover, if a species for Authorization until it has completed its impacts to belugas from construction which take is not authorized is revision of acoustic thresholds for take noise. encountered, the Authorization text by Level B harrassment. Response: NMFS acknowledges that states that the applicant must shut down Response: NMFS notes that NRDC’s there are scientific records of belugas active sound sources. comment that NMFS uses an outdated responding to anthropogenic noise, as Comment 8: The MMC recommends and incorrect threshold for behavioral evidenced in Kendall et al. (2014). that NMFS require EMALL to monitor takes does not include any specific Beluga whale response to vessel noise for marine mammals for 30 minutes recommendations. NMFS uses 160 dB varies greatly from tolerance to extreme after authorized activities have ceased. (rms) as the exposure level for sensitivity depending on the activity of Response: NMFS agrees with the estimating take by Level B harassment the whale and previous experience with MMC and has added a post-activity for most species in most cases. This vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). monitoring period of 30 minutes as a threshold was established for Reactions to vessels depends on whale requirement for this activity. A 30- underwater impulse sound sources activities and experience, habitat, boat minute monitoring period after the based on measured avoidance responses type, and boat behavior (Richardson et cessation of authorized sound source observed in whales in the wild. al., 1995), and may include behavioral operations can provide useful Specifically, the 160 dB threshold was responses, such as altered headings or observations to compare the behavior derived from data for mother-calf pairs avoidance (Blane and Jaakson, 1994; and abundance of animals during of migrating gray whales (Malme et al., Erbe and Farmer, 2000); fast swimming; different scenarios of various noise 1983, 1984) and bowhead whales changes in vocalizations (Lesage et al.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 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 NMFS ‘‘failed to consider or adequately sufficient to protect Cook Inlet beluga changes in dive, surfacing, and consider.’’ whales and the critical habitat in the respiration patterns. Response: NMFS provided a detailed Susitna Delta. While data indicate that A study by Lessage et al. (1999) of discussion of proposed mitigation belugas may use this part of the inlet belugas in the St. Lawrence River states measures and the MMPA’s ‘‘least year round, peak use occurs from early with respect to modification of vocal practicable impact’’ standard in the May to late September. NMFS added a behavior that ‘‘Owing to the gregarious notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 2-week buffer on both ends of this peak nature of belugas, this would not pose 37465, June 30, 2015), which are usage period to add extra protection to a serious problem for intraherd repeated in the ‘‘Mitigation’’ section of feeding and calving belugas. communication, given the relatively this notice. The measures that NRDC (4) Limitation of the mitigation airgun short distances between herd members; alleges NMFS failed to consider or to the longest shot interval necessary to a source of noise would have to be very adequately consider are identified and carry out its intended purpose: EMALL close to them to potentially limit any discussed below: is not proposing to use a mitigation communication within a herd. However, (1) Field testing and use of alternative airgun, therefore this measure does not communication is probably not limited technologies, such as vibroseis and apply. to herd members, since inter-herd gravity gradiometry, to reduce or (5) Immediate suspension of airgun communication may be important eliminate the need for airguns and activity, pending investigation, if any during the breeding season, when delaying seismic acquisition in higher beluga strandings occur within or locating food sources, when navigating density areas until the alternative within an appropriate distance of the in ice, or when reacting to large-scale technology of marine vibroseis becomes survey area: The IHA requires EMALL disturbance. On these larger scales, high available: EMALL requested takes of to immediately cease activities and noise levels could impair marine mammals incidental to the report unauthorized takes of marine geotechnical and geophysical survey communication.’’ NMFS acknowledges mammals, such as live stranding, injury, operations described in the IHA the potential for masking from the serious injury, or mortality. NMFS will application, which identified use of sound sources proposed by EMALL and review the circumstances of EMALL’s only a 60 in3 airgun array with a discusses the potential effects of this. unauthorized take and determine if distance to the 160-dB isopleth of 300m. The concerns raised by NRDC in the additional mitigation measures are It would be inappropriate for NMFS to paper by Bejder et al. (2009), that needed before activities can resume to fundamentally change the specified animals that do not display overt minimize the likelihood of further behavioral reactions could be incurring activity for which EMALL submitted an unauthorized take and to ensure MMPA harm, is an important component of IHA application by requiring that they compliance. EMALL may not resume understanding the effects of tolerance acquire data using an entirely different activities until notified by NMFS. on mammals in areas of increasing system of sound sources, especially if Separately, the IHA includes measures anthropogenic activity but no the alternate technology cannot meet the if injured or dead marine mammals are mechanism to estimate the objectives of the proposed activity. sighted and the cause cannot be easily physiological effects from tolerance are EMALL knows of no current determined. In those cases, NMFS will currently viable for this analysis. As technology scaled for industrial use that review the circumstances of the noted above, though, even though is reliable enough to meet the stranding event while EMALL continues shutdown measures are in place that environmental challenges of operating will minimize behavioral harassment of in Cook Inlet. An airgun is only one of with operations. belugas, NMFS does not reduce the several sources proposed by EMALL (6) Establishment of a larger exclusion amount of take expected/authorized due and alternative quieting technologies for zone for beluga whales that is not to possible habitation of belugas in Cook the boomer, chirp, and vibracore are predicated on the detection of whale Inlet to anthropogenic noise, and the undeveloped at this time. aggregations or cow-calf pairs: Both the negligible impact determination below (2) Required use of the lowest proposed IHA and the issued IHA does not rely on an assumption of practicable source level in conducting contain a requirement for EMALL to habitation to make the necessary airgun activity: EMALL is requesting to delay the start of active acoustic source findings. use a 60 in3 airgun, a very small source, use or shutdown the active acoustic Comment 14: The NRDC comments for a duration of 7 days. This size of sources if a beluga whale is visually that NMFS is failing to meet the airgun, and the length and area of the sighted approaching or within the 160- requirement of setting forth survey, is necessary to meet EMALL’s dB disturbance zone until the animal(s) ‘‘permissible methods of taking program objectives and minimize are no longer present within the 160-dB pursuant to such activity, and other geotechnical, geohazard, and zone. The measure applies to the means of effecting the least practicable constructability risks. sighting of any beluga whale, not just adverse impact on such species or stock (3) Seasonal exclusions around river sighting of groups or cow-calf pairs. and its habitat’’ and urges NMFS to mouths, including early spring (pre- Comment 15: FOA comments on adopt meaningful mitigation and April 14) exclusions around the Beluga several issues related to cumulative monitoring measures including River and Susitna Delta, and avoidance impacts analysis including: (1) NMFS requiring applicants to contribute to a of other areas that have a higher contradicts the Draft Recovery Plan by comprehensive monitoring plan to probability of beluga occurrence: NMFS issuing Authorizations, given that two better understand distribution as well as has required a 10 mile (16 km) concerns of note in the Plan include individual and cumulative effects of exclusion zone around the Susitna Delta noise and cumulative/synergistic effects human activities on Cook Inlet belugas, (which includes the Beluga River) in (2) each phase of the Alaska LNG project which was incorporated by reference to this IHA. Survey operations involving will add to increasing cumulative effects NRDC’s public comment on the the use of airgun, boomer, chirp, and to Cook Inlet belugas (3) over the past Proposed Rule for Apache Alaska vibracore will be prohibited in this area three years, NMFS has authorized at Corporation. In the Apache comment between April 15 and October 15. In least 288 takes by Level B harassment of letter, the NRDC provides a list of both the MMPA and ESA analysis, Cook Inlet beluga whales and that takes approximately eight measures that NMFS determined that this date range is for AK LNG must be addressed in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 50995

context of cumulative impacts from other information relevant to the NMFS Alaska Regional Office (Protected other authorized takes. determination made under the MMPA. Resources Division) under section 7 of Response: Neither the MMPA nor NMFS will continue to analyze the ESA on the issuance of the IHA to NMFS’ implementing regulations monitoring reports from authorized EMALL. NMFS’s Biological Opinion specify how to consider other activities activities, applicable new science, and concluded that the issuance of the IHA and their impacts on the same the increase of Cook Inlet activities in is not likely to jeopardize the continued populations when conducting a the context of the Cook Inlet Beluga existence of listed species (e.g., would negligible impact analysis. However, Whale Recovery Plan, and will also not appreciably reduce the ability of any consistent with the 1989 preamble for continue to carefully evaluate proposed listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 FR activities and recommend mitigation to survive and recover in the wild) or 40338, September 29, 1989), the impacts measures to ensure that the issuance of result in the destruction or adverse from other past and ongoing MMPA authorizations does not modification of critical habitat. anthropogenic activities are negatively impact the recovery of Cook Comment 21: FOA comments that incorporated into the negligible impact Inlet belugas. NMFS must include a discussion of analysis via their impacts on the Comment 16: FOA comments that the ethics and the rights of wildlife to environmental baseline (e.g., as Environmental Assessment (EA) was manage wildlife-human interactions and reflected in the density/distribution and difficult to find and recommends that suggests that this approach is consistent status of the species, population size NMFS re-open the public comment with NEPA and the ability to provide a and growth rate, and ambient noise). period for the EA as well as the Draft ‘‘full and fair discussion’’ of the issues Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet belugas. and inform decision makes and the Although caution is warranted for Response: NMFS posted a draft of the noise-producing activities, especially in public of the reasonable alternatives that EA on its Web site for public review: would avoid or minimize adverse light of all of the other activities in Cook http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ Inlet, NMFS does not agree that impacts or enhance the quality of the incidental/energy_other.htm. On July human environment. 40 CFR 1502.1. issuance of any Authorizations for take 6th, the MMC notified NMFS that the Response: Consistent with the of Cook Inlet beluga whales is documents were placed under ‘‘Other’’ requirements of NEPA and CEQ’s contradictory to recommendations in and not ‘‘Natural Gas’’ on the Web site. implementing regulations, NMFS the Draft Recovery Plan for this species. Once notified, NMFS corrected the prepared an Environmental Assessment NMFS is taking a cautious approach, error. During and after that time NMFS prior to issuing an IHA to EMALL that both in the context of this particular received no other communication from includes a comprehensive assessment of project and Cook Inlet more broadly, to any persons or organizations requesting the effects of this action and alternative ensure that all impacts on beluga whales to be directed to those documents or actions on the human environment, are adequately analyzed and minimized. asking for clarification as to their including the impacts of the action and For example, the shutdown of active location. Therefore, NMFS does not alternative actions on marine mammal sound sources at the 160-dB disturbance believe the EA should be reopened for populations. While NMFS shares FAO’s zone for beluga whales in Cook Inlet is public comment. The Draft Recovery concerns regarding the ethical treatment a precautionary measure not used in Plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales is a of animals, it is not possible to directly other areas to ensure the minimization separate action and the reopening of its address ethical treatment in the context of behavioral harassment of belugas. comment period is not relevant to this of incidental and unintended effects Additionally, a precautionary approach Authorization. (i.e., those authorized by this action), as was taken in estimating the number of Comment 17: FOA comments that the any pain resulting from these impacts is exposures from the proposed EMALL Marine Terminal area lies within beluga far removed from any operator decisions survey, which is likely an overestimate Critical Habitat. FOA also comments and is neither observable, measurable or of individuals taken for reason that effects on habitat could include controllable. Instead, IHAs aim to explained below in the ‘Take disturbance to prey from noise, and minimize actual adverse effects to Estimation’’ section related to number of disturbances to the environment from marine mammal individuals and individuals taken versus instances of the platform’s legs and project populations. exposure. discharges from sampling activities. Description of Marine Mammals in the More broadly, NMFS has announced Response: The Federal Register notice Area of the Specified Activity our intent to prepare an EIS to better of the proposed Authorization analyzed analyze cumulative impacts from potential effects to prey species and Marine mammals that regularly potential increasing anthropogenic marine mammal habitat. The possibility inhabit upper Cook Inlet and Nikiski activities to Cook Inlet beluga whales. In of adverse modification to Critical activity areas are the beluga whale addition, cumulative effects were Habitat through reduction in prey (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor addressed in the EA and Biological species is addressed in the Biological porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Opinion prepared for this action. The Opinion, which resulted in a finding of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) (Table 6). cumulative effects section of the EA has no adverse modification to critical However, these species are found there been expanded from the draft EA to habitat. in relatively low numbers, and generally discuss potential effects in greater Comment 20: FOA comments that only during the summer fish runs detail. These documents, as well as the issuance of an IHA to EMALL would (Nemeth et al. 2007, Boveng et al. 2012). Alaska Marine Stock Assessments and violate the ESA because granting the Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are the most recent abundance estimate for IHA would ‘‘appreciably reduce the occasionally observed in upper Cook Cook Inlet beluga whales (Shelden et al, likelihood of survival and recovery of Inlet where they have been observed 2015), are part of NMFS’ Administrative species in the wild.’’ attempting to prey on beluga whales Record for this action, and provided the Response: NMFS disagrees with (Shelden et al. 2003). Based on a decision maker with information FOA’s comment. NMFS Office of number of factors, Shelden et al. (2003) regarding other activities in the action Protected Resources (Permits and concluded that the killer whales found area that affect marine mammals, an Conservation Division) initiated and in upper Cook Inlet to date are the analysis of cumulative impacts, and engaged in formal consultation with transient type, while resident types

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50996 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

occasionally enter lower Cook Inlet. whales (Eschrichtius robustus), minke Background information of species Marine mammals occasionally found in whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), evaluated in this Authorization is lower Cook Inlet include humpback Dall’s porpoise (Phocoena dalli), and detailed in Table 1 below. whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus).

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE COOK INLET ACTION AREA

ESA/MMPA Stock abundance status 1; Relative occurrence in Cook Species Stock (CV, Nmin, most recent strategic 2 Inlet; season of occurrence (Y/N) abundance survey)

Killer whale ...... Alaska Resident ...... -;N 2,347 (N/A; 2,084; 2009) ...... Occasionally sighted in Lower Alaska Transient ...... -:N 345 (N/A; 303; 2003) Cook Inlet. Beluga whale ...... Cook Inlet ...... E/D;Y 312 (0.10; 280; 2012) ...... Use upper Inlet in summer and lower in winter: annual. Harbor porpoise ...... Gulf of Alaska ...... -;Y 31,046 (0.214; 25,987; 1998) Widespread in the Inlet: an- nual (less in winter). Harbor seal ...... Cook Inlet/Shelikof ...... -;N 22,900 (0.053; 21,896; 2006) Frequently found in upper and lower inlet; annual (more in northern Inlet in summer).

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Angliss 2014), with the most recent area (but not necessarily specific G&G The Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct estimate at only 312 animals (Allen and survey locations; see Section 6.3 in the Population Segment (DPS) is a small Angliss 2014). The NMFS listed the application) and the vicinity of the geographically isolated population that population as ‘‘depleted’’ in 2000 as a proposed Marine Terminal. However, is separated from other beluga consequence of the decline, and as Cook Inlet beluga whales begin moving populations by the Alaska Peninsula. ‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA in 2008 into Knik Arm around August 15 where The population is genetically (mtDNA) when the population failed to recover they spend about a month feeding on distinct from other Alaska populations, following a moratorium on subsistence Eagle River salmon. The area between suggesting that the Peninsula is an harvest. In April 2011, the NMFS Nikiski, Kenai, and Kalgin Island effective barrier to genetic exchange designated critical habitat for the Cook provides important wintering habitat for (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997) and that Inlet beluga whale under the ESA Cook Inlet beluga whales. Use of this these whales may have been separated (Figure 2 in the application). area would be expected between fall from other stocks at least since the last Prior to the decline, this DPS was and spring, with animals largely absent ice age. Laidre et al. (2000) examined believed to range throughout Cook Inlet during the summer months when G&G data from over 20 marine mammal and occasionally into Prince William surveys would occur (Goetz et al. 2012). Sound and Yakutat (Nemeth et al. surveys conducted in the northern Gulf Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) of Alaska and found that sightings of 2007). However, the range has belugas outside Cook Inlet were contracted coincident with the Two different stocks of killer whales exceedingly rare, and these were population reduction (Speckman and inhabit the Cook Inlet region of Alaska: composed of a few stragglers from the Piatt 2000). During the summer and fall, The Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf Cook Inlet DPS observed at Kodiak beluga whales are concentrated near the of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Island, Prince William Sound, and Susitna River mouth, Knik Arm, Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss Yakutat Bay. Several marine mammal Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon Bay 2014). The Alaska Resident killer whale surveys specific to Cook Inlet (Laidre et (Nemeth et al. 2007) where they feed on stock is estimated at 2,347 animals and al. 2000, Speckman and Piatt 2000), migrating eulachon (Thaleichthys occurs from Southeast Alaska to the including those that concentrated on pacificus) and salmon (Onchorhynchus Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2014). beluga whales (Rugh et al. 2000, 2005a), spp.) (Moore et al. 2000). The limits of Resident killer whales feed exclusively clearly indicate that this stock largely Critical Habitat Area 1 reflect the on fish and are genetically distinct from confines itself to Cook Inlet. There is no summer distribution (Figure 3 in the transient whales (Saulitis et al. 2000). indication that these whales make application). During the winter, beluga The transient killer whales feed forays into the Bering Sea where they whales concentrate in deeper waters in primarily on marine mammals (Saulitis might intermix with other Alaskan the mid-inlet to Kalgin Island, and in et al. 2000). The transient population stocks. the shallow waters along the west shore inhabiting the Gulf of Alaska shares The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was of Cook Inlet to Kamishak Bay. The mitochondrial DNA haplotypes with originally estimated at 1,300 whales in limits of Critical Habitat Area 2 reflect whales found along the Aleutian Islands 1979 (Calkins 1989) and has been the the winter distribution. Some whales and the Bering Sea, suggesting a focus of management concerns since may also winter in and near Kachemak common stock, although there appears experiencing a dramatic decline in the Bay. to be some subpopulation genetic 1990s. Between 1994 and 1998 the stock Goetz et al. (2012) modeled beluga structuring occurring to suggest the gene declined 47%, which has been use in Cook Inlet based on the NMFS flow between groups is limited (see attributed to overharvesting by aerial surveys conducted between 1994 Allen and Angliss 2014). For the three subsistence hunting. During that period, and 2008. The combined model results regions combined, the transient subsistence hunting was estimated to shown in Figure 3 in the application population has been estimated at 587 have annually removed 10–15% of the indicate a very clumped distribution of animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). population. Only five belugas have been summering beluga whales, and that Killer whales are occasionally harvested since 1999, yet the population lower densities of belugas are expected observed in lower Cook Inlet, especially has continued to decline (Allen and to occur in most of the pipeline survey near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 50997

et al. 2003, Rugh et al. 2005a). The few encountered during G&G Program Humpback Whale (Megaptera whales that have been photographically surveys in upper Cook Inlet. novaeangliae) identified in lower Cook Inlet belong to Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) Although there is considerable resident groups more commonly found distributional overlap in the humpback in nearby Kenai Fjords and Prince At over 150,000 animals state-wide whale stocks that use Alaska, the whales William Sound (Shelden et al. 2003). (Allen and Angliss 2014), harbor seals seasonally found in lower Cook Inlet are Prior to the 1980s, killer whale sightings are one of the more common marine probably of the Central North Pacific in upper Cook Inlet were very rare. mammal species in Alaskan waters. stock. Listed as endangered under the During aerial surveys conducted They are most commonly seen hauled ESA, this stock has recently been between 1993 and 2004, killer whales out at tidal flats and rocky areas. Harbor estimated at 7,469, with the portion of were observed on only three flights, all seals feed largely on schooling fish such the stock that feeds in the Gulf of Alaska in the Kachemak and English Bay area as Alaska Pollock, Pacific cod, salmon, estimated at 2,845 animals (Allen and (Rugh et al. 2005a). However, anecdotal Pacific herring, eulachon, and squid. Angliss 2014). The Central North Pacific reports of killer whales feeding on stock winters in Hawaii and summers belugas in upper Cook Inlet began Although harbor seals may make seasonal movements in response to from British Columbia to the Aleutian increasing in the 1990s, possibly in Islands (Calambokidis et al. 1997), response to declines in sea lion and prey, they are resident to Alaska and do not migrate. including Cook Inlet. harbor seal prey elsewhere (Shelden et Humpback use of Cook Inlet is largely al. 2003). These sporadic ventures of The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Stock, confined to lower Cook Inlet. They have transient killer whales into beluga ranging from approximately Anchorage been regularly seen near Kachemak Bay summering grounds have been down along the south side of the Alaska during the summer months (Rugh et al. implicated as a possible contributor to Peninsula to Unimak Pass, has been 2005a), and there is a whale-watching the decline of Cook Inlet belugas in the recently estimated at a stable 22,900 venture in Homer capitalizing on this 1990s, although the number of (Allen and Angliss 2014). Large seasonal event. There are anecdotal confirmed mortalities from killer whales numbers concentrate at the river mouths observations of humpback whales as far is small (Shelden et al. 2003). If killer and embayments of lower Cook Inlet, north as Anchor Point, with recent whales were to venture into upper Cook including the Fox River mouth in summer observations extending to Cape Inlet in 2015, they might be encountered Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al. 2005a). Starichkof (Owl Ridge 2014). Because of during the G&G Program. Montgomery et al. (2007) recorded over the southern distribution of humpbacks Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 200 haulout sites in lower Cook Inlet in Cook Inlet, it is unlikely that they alone. However, only a few dozen to a will be encountered during this activity Harbor porpoise are small couple hundred seals seasonally occur in close enough proximity to cause (approximately 1.2 m [4 ft] in length), in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a), Level B harassment. Therefore, no take relatively inconspicuous toothed mostly at the mouth of the Susitna River is authorized for humpback whales. whales. The Gulf of Alaska Stock is where their numbers vary with the distributed from Cape Suckling to Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) spring eulachon and summer salmon Unimak Pass and was most recently runs (Nemeth et al. 2007, Boveng et al. Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific estimated at 31,046 animals (Allen and 2012). Review of NMFS aerial survey stock of gray whale migrates 8,000 Angliss 2014). They are found primarily data collected from 1993–2012 (Shelden kilometers (5,000 miles) northward from in coastal waters less than 100 m (328 et al. 2013) finds that the annual high breeding lagoons in Baja California to ft) deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010) where feeding grounds in the Bering and counts of seals hauled out in Cook Inlet they feed on Pacific herring (Clupea Chukchi seas, reversing their travel ranged from about 100–380, with most pallasii), other schooling fishes, and again in the fall (Rice and Wolman of these animals hauling out at the cephalopods. 1971). Their migration route is for the mouths of the Theodore and Lewis Although they have been frequently most part coastal until they reach the Rivers. There are certainly thousands of observed during aerial surveys in Cook feeding grounds. A small portion of Inlet, most sightings of harbor porpoise harbor seals occurring in lower Cook whales do not annually complete the are of single animals, and are Inlet, but no references have been found full circuit, as small numbers can be concentrated at Chinitna and Tuxedni showing more than about 400 harbor found in the summer feeding along the bays on the west side of lower Cook seals occurring seasonally in upper Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005a). Dahlheim et al. Cook Inlet. In 2012, up to 100 harbor and Alaskan coasts (Rice et al. 1984, (2000) estimated the 1991 Cook Inlet- seals were observed hauled out at the Moore et al. 2007). wide population at only 136 animals. mouths of the Theodore and Lewis Human exploitation reduced this Also, during marine mammal rivers (located about 16 km [10 mi] stock to an estimated ‘‘few thousand’’ monitoring efforts conducted in upper northeast of the pipeline survey area) animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). Cook Inlet by Apache from 2012 to during monitoring activity associated However, by the late 1980s, the stock 2014, harbor porpoise represented less with Apache’s 2012 Cook Inlet seismic was appearing to reach carrying than 2% of all marine mammal program, and harbor seals constituted capacity and estimated to be at 26,600 sightings. However, they are one of the 60 percent of all marine mammal animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). By three marine mammals (besides belugas sightings by Apache observers during 2002, that stock had been reduced to and harbor seals) regularly seen in 2012 to 2014 survey and monitoring about 16,000 animals, especially upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth et al. 2007), efforts (L. Parker, Apache, pers. comm.). following unusually high mortality especially during spring eulachon and Montgomery et al. (2007) also found events in 1999 and 2000 (Allen and summer salmon runs. Because harbor that seals elsewhere in Cook Inlet move Angliss 2014). The stock has continued porpoise have been observed throughout in response to local steelhead to grow since then and is currently Cook Inlet during the summer months, (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and salmon estimated at 19,126 animals with a including mid-inlet waters, they runs. Harbor seals may be encountered minimum estimate of 18,017 (Carretta et represent species that might be during G&G surveys in Cook Inlet. al. 2013). Most gray whales migrate past

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 50998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

the mouth of Cook Inlet to and from concentration of sightings of Dall’s profiler chirper and boomer, vibracore) northern feeding grounds. However, porpoise in a southerly part of the Inlet of the specified activity may impact small numbers of summering gray suggest it is unlikely they will be marine mammals. The ‘‘Estimated Take whales have been noted by fisherman encountered during EMALL’s activities. by Incidental Harassment’’ section later near Kachemak Bay and north of Therefore, no take of Dall’s porpoise is in this document will include a Anchor Point. Further, summering gray authorized. quantitative analysis of the number of whales were seen offshore of Cape Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) individuals that NMFS expects to be Starichkof by marine mammal observers taken by this activity. The ‘‘Negligible monitoring Buccaneer’s Cosmopolitan The Western Stock of the Steller sea Impact Analysis’’ section will include drilling program in 2013 (Owl Ridge lion is defined as all populations west the analysis of how this specific ° 2014). Regardless, gray whales are not of longitude 144 W. to the western end proposed activity would impact marine expected to be encountered in upper of the Aleutian Islands. The most recent mammals and will consider the content Cook Inlet, where the activity is estimate for this stock is 45,649 animals of this section, the ‘‘Estimated Take by concentrated, north of Kachemak Bay. (Allen and Angliss 2014), considerably Incidental Harassment’’ section, the Therefore, it is unlikely that they will be less than that estimated 140,000 animals ‘‘Mitigation’’ section, and the encountered during this activity in close in the 1950s (Merrick et al. 1987). ‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal enough proximity to cause Level B Because of this dramatic decline, the Habitat’’ section to draw conclusions harassment and are not considered stock was listed under the ESA as a regarding the likely impacts of this further in this final Authorization threatened DPS in 1990, and relisted as activity on the reproductive success or notice. endangered in 1997. Critical habitat was survivorship of individuals and from designated in 1993, and is defined as a that on the affected marine mammal Minke Whale (Balaenoptera 20-nautical-mile radius around all major acutorostrata) populations or stocks. rookeries and haulout sites. The 20- NMFS intends to provide a nautical-mile buffer was established Minke whales are the smallest of the background of potential effects of rorqual group of baleen whales reaching based on telemetry data that indicated EMALL’s activities in this section. lengths of up to 35 feet. They are also these sea lions concentrated their Operating active acoustic sources have the most common of the baleen whales, summer foraging effort within this the potential for adverse effects on although there are no population distance of rookeries and haul outs. marine mammals. The majority of estimates for the North Pacific, although Steller sea lions inhabit lower Cook anticipated impacts would be from the estimates have been made for some Inlet, especially in the vicinity of Shaw use of active acoustic sources. portions of Alaska. Zerbini et al. (2006) Island and Elizabeth Island (Nagahut estimated the coastal population Rocks) haulout sites (Rugh et al. 2005a), Acoustic Impacts between Kenai Fjords and the Aleutian but are rarely seen in upper Cook Inlet When considering the influence of Islands at 1,233 animals. (Nemeth et al. 2007). Of the 42 Steller various kinds of sound on the marine During Cook Inlet-wide aerial surveys sea lion groups recorded during Cook environment, it is necessary to conducted from 1993 to 2004, minke Inlet aerial surveys between 1993 and understand that different kinds of whales were encountered only twice 2004, none were recorded north of marine life are sensitive to different (1998, 1999), both times off Anchor Anchor Point and only one in the frequencies of sound. Current data Point 16 miles northwest of Homer. vicinity of Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al. indicate that not all marine mammal Recently, several minke whales were 2005a). Marine mammal observers species have equal hearing capabilities recorded off Cape Starichkof in early associated with Buccaneer’s drilling (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., summer 2013 during exploratory project off Cape Starichkof did observe 1997; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and drilling conducted there (Owl Ridge seven Steller sea lions during the Hastings, 2008). 2014). There are no records north of summer of 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014). Cape Starichkof, and this species is The upper reaches of Cook Inlet may Southall et al. (2007) designated unlikely to be seen in upper Cook Inlet. not provide adequate foraging ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ for marine There is little chance of encountering a conditions for sea lions for establishing mammals based on available behavioral minke whale during these activities. a major haul out presence. Steller sea data; audiograms derived from auditory Therefore, no take of minke whales is lions feed largely on walleye pollock, evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; authorized. salmon and arrowtooth flounder during and other data. Southall et al. (2007) the summer, and walleye pollock and also estimated the lower and upper Dall’s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) Pacific cod during the winter (Sinclair frequencies of functional hearing for Dall’s porpoise are widely distributed and Zeppelin 2002), none of which, each group. However, animals are less throughout the North Pacific Ocean except for salmon, are found in sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of including Alaska, although they are not abundance in upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth their functional hearing range and are found in upper Cook Inlet and the et al. 2007). Steller sea lions are unlikely more sensitive to a range of frequencies shallower waters of the Bering, Chukchi, to be encountered during operations in within the middle of their functional and Beaufort Seas (Allen and Angliss upper Cook Inlet, as they are primarily hearing range. 2014). Compared to harbor porpoise, encountered along the Kenai Peninsula, The functional groups and the Dall’s porpoise prefer the deep offshore especially closer to Anchor Point. associated frequencies are: and shelf slope waters. The Alaskan Therefore, no take of Steller sea lion is • Low frequency cetaceans (13 population has been estimated at 83,400 authorized. species of mysticetes): Functional animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), hearing estimates occur between making it one of the more common Potential Effects of the Specified approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 25 kHz cetaceans in the state. Dall’s porpoise Activity on Marine Mammals and Their (extended from 22 kHz based on data have been observed in lower Cook Inlet, Habitat indicating that some mysticetes can hear including Kachemak Bay and near This section includes a summary and above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi Anchor Point (Owl Ridge 2014), but discussion of the ways that components and Stein, 2007; Ketten and Mountain, sightings there are rare. The (seismic airgun operations, sub-bottom 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 50999

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 environment are relatively rare. responsiveness to boat traffic and some species of dolphins, six species of larger Richardson et al. (1995) defined other acoustic sources (Richardson, et toothed whales, and 19 species of tolerance as the occurrence of marine al., 1995; Southall, et al., 2007). In beaked and bottlenose whales): mammals in areas where they are contrast, the authors reported that gray Functional hearing estimates occur exposed to human activities or whales seemed to tolerate exposures to between approximately 150 Hz and 160 manmade noise. In many cases, sound up to approximately 170 dB re: kHz; tolerance develops by the animal 1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006) and • High-frequency cetaceans (eight habituating to the stimulus (i.e., the Dall’s porpoises occupied and tolerated species of true porpoises, six species of gradual waning of responses to a areas receiving exposures of 170–180 dB river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, repeated or ongoing stimulus) re: 1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006; and four species of cephalorhynchids): (Richardson, et al., 1995), but because of Parsons, et al., 2009). The authors Functional hearing estimates occur ecological or physiological observed several gray whales that between approximately 200 Hz and 180 requirements, many marine animals moved away from the airguns toward kHz; and may need to remain in areas where they deeper water where sound levels were • Pinnipeds in water: Phocid (true are exposed to chronic stimuli higher due to propagation effects seals) functional hearing estimates occur (Richardson, et al., 1995). resulting in higher noise exposures between approximately 75 Hz and 100 Numerous studies have shown that (Bain and Williams, 2006). However, it kHz (Hemila et al., 2006; Mulsow et al., pulsed sounds from airguns are often is unclear whether their movements 2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and readily detectable in the water at reflected a response to the sounds (Bain otariid (seals and sea lions) functional distances of many kilometers. Several and Williams, 2006). Thus, the authors hearing estimates occur between studies have also shown that marine surmised that the lack of gray whale approximately 100 Hz to 40 kHz. mammals at distances of more than a responses to higher received sound As mentioned previously in this few kilometers from operating seismic levels were ambiguous at best because document, Cook Inlet beluga whales, vessels often show no apparent one expects the species to be the most harbor porpoise, killer whales, and response. That is often true even in sensitive to the low-frequency sound harbor seals (3 odontocetes and 1 cases when the pulsed sounds must be emanating from the airguns (Bain and phocid) would likely occur in the action readily audible to the animals based on Williams, 2006). area. Table 2 presents the classification measured received levels and the Pirotta et al., (2014) observed short- of these species into their respective hearing sensitivity of the marine term responses of harbor porpoises to a functional hearing group. NMFS mammal group. Although various two-dimensional (2–D) seismic survey consider a species’ functional hearing baleen whales and toothed whales, and in an enclosed bay in northeast Scotland group when analyzing the effects of (less frequently) pinnipeds have been which did not result in broad-scale exposure to sound on marine mammals. shown to react behaviorally to airgun displacement. The harbor porpoises that pulses under some conditions, at other remained in the enclosed bay area TABLE 2—CLASSIFICATION OF MARINE times marine mammals of all three types reduced their buzzing activity by 15 MAMMALS THAT COULD POTEN- have shown no overt reactions (Stone, percent during the seismic survey TIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Moulton (Pirotta, et al., 2014). Thus, the authors et al. 2005, 2006) and (MacLean and suggest that animals exposed to ACTIVITY AREA IN COOK INLET, Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006). anthropogenic disturbance may make 2015 BY FUNCTIONAL HEARING Weir (2008) observed marine mammal trade-offs between perceived risks and GROUP responses to seismic pulses from a 24 the cost of leaving disturbed areas [Southall et al., 2007] airgun array firing a total volume of (Pirotta, et al., 2014). either 5,085 in3 or 3,147 in3 in Angolan Masking Mid-Frequency Hear- Beluga whale, killer waters between August 2004 and May ing Range. whale. 2005. Weir (2008) recorded a total of Marine mammals use acoustic signals High Frequency Hear- Harbor porpoise. 207 sightings of humpback whales (n = for a variety of purposes, which differ ing Range. 66), sperm whales (n = 124), and among species, but include Pinnipeds in Water Harbor seal. Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) and communication between individuals, Hearing Range. reported that there were no significant navigation, foraging, reproduction, differences in encounter rates (sightings avoiding predators, and learning about 1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on per hour) for humpback and sperm their environment (Erbe and Farmer, Marine Mammals whales according to the airgun array’s 2000; Tyack, 2000). The effects of sounds from airgun operational status (i.e., active versus The term masking refers to the operations might include one or more of silent). inability of an animal to recognize the the following: Tolerance, masking of Bain and Williams (2006) examined occurrence of an acoustic stimulus natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, the effects of a large airgun array because of interference of another temporary or permanent impairment, or (maximum total discharge volume of acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). non-auditory physical or physiological 1,100 in 3) on six species in shallow Thus, masking is the obscuring of effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon waters off British Columbia and sounds of interest by other sounds, often et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Washington: Harbor seal, California sea at similar frequencies. It is a Southall et al., 2007). The effects of lion, Steller sea lion, gray whale, Dall’s phenomenon that affects animals that noise on marine mammals are highly porpoise, and harbor porpoise. Harbor are trying to receive acoustic variable, often depending on species porpoises showed reactions at received information about their environment, and contextual factors (based on levels less than 155 dB re: 1 mPa at a including sounds from other members Richardson et al., 1995). distance of greater than 70 km (43 mi) of their species, predators, prey, and from the seismic source (Bain and sounds that allow them to orient in their Tolerance Williams, 2006). However, the tendency environment. Masking these acoustic Studies on marine mammals’ for greater responsiveness by harbor signals can disturb the behavior of tolerance to sound in the natural porpoise is consistent with their relative individual animals, groups of animals,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 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 ranged from 88 to 110 dB re: 1 mPa signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of circumstances. (Risch, et al., 2012). The authors higher frequency hearing by the Introduced underwater sound may, hypothesized that individuals did not bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and through masking, reduce the effective leave the area but instead ceased singing killer whale, empirical evidence communication distance of a marine and noted that the duration and confirms that masking depends strongly mammal species if the frequency of the frequency range of the OAWRS signals on the relative directions of arrival of source is close to that used as a signal (a novel sound to the whales) were sound signals and the masking noise by the marine mammal, and if the similar to those of natural humpback (Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; anthropogenic sound is present for a whale song components used during Bain et al., 1993; Bain and Dahlheim, significant fraction of the time mating (Risch et al., 2012). Thus, the 1994). Toothed whales and probably (Richardson et al., 1995). novelty of the sound to humpback other marine mammals as well, have Marine mammals are thought to be whales in the study area provided a additional capabilities besides able to compensate for masking by compelling contextual probability for directional hearing that can facilitate adjusting their acoustic behavior the observed effects (Risch et al., 2012). detection of sounds in the presence of through shifting call frequencies, However, the authors did not state or background noise. There is evidence increasing call volume, and increasing imply that these changes had long-term that some toothed whales can shift the vocalization rates. For example in one effects on individual animals or dominant frequencies of their study, blue whales increased call rates populations (Risch et al., 2012). echolocation signals from a frequency when exposed to noise from seismic Several studies have also reported range with a lot of ambient noise toward surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di hearing dolphins and porpoises calling frequencies with less noise (Au et al., Iorio and Clark, 2010). Other studies while airguns were operating (e.g., 1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; reported that some North Atlantic right Gordon et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko whales exposed to high shipping noise Holst et al., 2005a, b; and Potter et al., and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A increased call frequency (Parks et al., 2007). The sounds important to small few marine mammal species increase 2007) and some humpback whales odontocetes are predominantly at much the source levels or alter the frequency responded to low-frequency active sonar higher frequencies than the dominant of their calls in the presence of elevated playbacks by increasing song length components of airgun sounds, thus sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 1993; (Miller et al., 2000). Additionally, limiting the potential for masking in Lesage et al., 1993, 1999; Terhune, 1999; beluga whales change their those species. Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007, vocalizations in the presence of high Although some degree of masking is 2009; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et background noise possibly to avoid inevitable when high levels of manmade al., 2009). masking calls (Au et al., 1985; Lesage et broadband sounds are present in the These data demonstrating adaptations al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). sea, marine mammals have evolved for reduced masking pertain mainly to Studies have shown that some baleen systems and behavior that function to the very high frequency echolocation and toothed whales continue calling in reduce the impacts of masking. signals of toothed whales. There is less the presence of seismic pulses, and Odontocete conspecifics may readily information about the existence of some researchers have heard these calls detect structured signals, such as the corresponding mechanisms at moderate between the seismic pulses (e.g., echolocation click sequences of small or low frequencies or in other types of McDonald et al., 1995; Greene et al., toothed whales even in the presence of marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva 1999; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea et strong background noise because their et al. (1980) found that, for the al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, 2005b, frequency content and temporal features bottlenose dolphin, the angular 2006; and Dunn and Hernandez, 2009). usually differ strongly from those of the separation between a sound source and In contrast, Clark and Gagnon (2006) background noise (Au and Moore, 1988, a masking noise source had little effect reported that fin whales in the northeast 1990). The components of background on the degree of masking when the Pacific Ocean went silent for an noise that are similar in frequency to the sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast extended period starting soon after the sound signal in question primarily to the pronounced effect at higher onset of a seismic survey in the area. determine the degree of masking of that frequencies. Studies have noted Similarly, NMFS is aware of one report signal. directional hearing at frequencies as low that observed sperm whales ceased calls Redundancy and context can also as 0.5–2 kHz in several marine when exposed to pulses from a very facilitate detection of weak signals. mammals, including killer whales distant seismic ship (Bowles et al., These phenomena may help marine (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability 1994). However, more recent studies mammals detect weak sounds in the may be useful in reducing masking at have found that sperm whales presence of natural or manmade noise. these frequencies. In summary, high continued calling in the presence of Most masking studies in marine levels of sound generated by seismic pulses (Madsen et al., 2002; mammals present the test signal and the anthropogenic activities may act to Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; masking noise from the same direction. mask the detection of weaker Holst et al., 2006; and Jochens et al., The sound localization abilities of biologically important sounds by some 2008). marine mammals suggest that, if signal marine mammals. This masking may be Risch et al., (2012) documented and noise come from different more prominent for lower frequencies. reductions in humpback whale directions, masking would not be as For higher frequencies, such as that vocalizations in the Stellwagen Bank severe as the usual types of masking used in echolocation by toothed whales, National Marine Sanctuary concurrent studies might suggest (Richardson et al., several mechanisms are available that with transmissions of the Ocean 1995). The dominant background noise may allow them to reduce the effects of Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing may be highly directional if it comes such masking. (OAWRS) low-frequency fish sensor from a particular anthropogenic source system at distances of 200 km (124 mi) such as a ship or industrial site. Behavioral Disturbance from the source. The recorded OAWRS Directional hearing may significantly Marine mammals may behaviorally produced series of frequency modulated reduce the masking effects of these react to sound when exposed to pulses and the signal received levels sounds by improving the effective anthropogenic noise. Reactions to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51001

sound, if any, depend on species, state al., 2005; Nieukirk et al., 2004; 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and of maturity, experience, current activity, Richardson, et al., 1986; Smultea et al., Miller, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; reproductive state, time of day, and 2004). Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, many other factors (Richardson et al., Baleen Whales: Studies have shown 2006; Potter et al., 2007; Hauser et al., 1995; D’Spain & Wartzok, 2004; that underwater sounds from seismic 2008; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Weir, Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). activities are often readily detectable by 2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Richardson Types of behavioral reactions can baleen whales in the water at distances et al., 2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010). include the following: changing of many kilometers (Castellote et al., Reactions of toothed whales to large durations of surfacing and dives, 2012 for fin whales). arrays of airguns are variable and, at number of blows per surfacing, or Observers have seen various species least for delphinids, seem to be confined moving direction and/or speed; of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and to a smaller radius than has been reduced/increased vocal activities; minke whales) in areas ensonified by observed for mysticetes. changing/cessation of certain behavioral airgun pulses (Stone, 2003; MacLean Observers stationed on seismic activities (such as socializing or and Haley, 2004; Stone and Tasker, vessels operating off the United feeding); visible startle response or 2006), and have localized calls from Kingdom from 1997–2000 have aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke blue and fin whales in areas with airgun provided data on the occurrence and slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of operations (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995; behavior of various toothed whales areas where noise sources are located; Dunn and Hernandez, 2009; Castellote exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds et al., 2010). Sightings by observers on Gordon et al., 2004). The studies note flushing into water from haulouts or seismic vessels off the United Kingdom that killer whales were significantly rookeries). from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during farther from large airgun arrays during The biological significance of many of times of good visibility, sighting rates periods of active airgun operations these behavioral disturbances is difficult for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei compared with periods of silence. The to predict, especially if the detected whales) were similar when large arrays displacement of the median distance disturbances appear minor. However, of airguns were shooting versus silent from the array was approximately 0.5 one could expect the consequences of (Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). km (0.3 mi) or more. Killer whales also behavioral modification to be However, these whales tended to exhibit appear to be more tolerant of seismic biologically significant if the change localized avoidance, remaining shooting in deeper water (Stone, 2003; affects growth, survival, and/or significantly further (on average) from Gordon et al., 2004). reproduction (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, the airgun array during seismic The beluga may be a species that (at 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Examples of operations compared with non-seismic least in certain geographic areas) shows behavioral modifications that could periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006). long-distance avoidance of seismic impact growth, survival, or Ship-based monitoring studies of vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic reproduction include: baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, operations in the southeastern Beaufort • Drastic changes in diving/surfacing minke, and humpback whales) in the Sea recorded much lower sighting rates patterns (such as those associated with northwest Atlantic found that overall, of beluga whales within 10–20 km (6.2– beaked whale stranding related to this group had lower sighting rates 12.4 mi) of an active seismic vessel. exposure to military mid-frequency during seismic versus non-seismic These results were consistent with the tactical sonar); periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010). The low number of beluga sightings reported • Permanent habitat abandonment authors observed that baleen whales as by observers aboard the seismic vessel, due to loss of desirable acoustic a group were significantly farther from suggesting that some belugas might have environment; and the vessel during seismic compared been avoiding the seismic operations at • Disruption of feeding or social with non-seismic periods. Moreover, the distances of 10–20 km (6.2–12.4 mi) interaction resulting in significant authors observed that the whales swam (Miller et al., 2005). energetic costs, inhibited breeding, or away more often from the operating cow-calf separation. seismic vessel (Moulton and Holst, Delphinids The onset of behavioral disturbance 2010). Initial sightings of blue and Seismic operators and protected from anthropogenic noise depends on minke whales were significantly farther species observers (observers) on seismic both external factors (characteristics of from the vessel during seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other noise sources and their paths) and the operations compared to non-seismic small toothed whales near operating receiving animals (hearing, motivation, periods and the authors observed the airgun arrays, but in general there is a experience, demography) and is also same trend for fin whales (Moulton and tendency for most delphinids to show difficult to predict (Richardson et al., Holst, 2010). Also, the authors observed some avoidance of operating seismic 1995; Southall et al., 2007). Many that minke whales most often swam vessels (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; studies have also shown that marine away from the vessel when seismic Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, mammals at distances more than a few operations were underway (Moulton 2003; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst kilometers away often show no apparent and Holst, 2010). et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; response when exposed to seismic Toothed Whales: Few systematic data Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009; activities (e.g., Madsen & Mohl, 2000 for are available describing reactions of Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and sperm whales; Malme et al., 1983, 1984 toothed whales to noise pulses. Holst, 2010). Some dolphins seem to be for gray whales; and Richardson et al., However, systematic work on sperm attracted to the seismic vessel and 1986 for bowhead whales). Other whales is underway (e.g., Gordon et al., floats, and some ride the bow wave of studies have shown that marine 2006; Madsen et al., 2006; Winsor and the seismic vessel even when large mammals continue important behaviors Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller arrays of airguns are firing (e.g., in the presence of seismic pulses (e.g., et al., 2009) and there is an increasing Moulton and Miller, 2005). Nonetheless, Dunn & Hernandez, 2009 for blue amount of information about responses there have been indications that small whales; Greene Jr. et al., 1999 for of various odontocetes, including killer toothed whales sometimes move away bowhead whales; Holst and Beland, whales and belugas, to seismic surveys or maintain a somewhat greater distance 2010; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Holst et based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, from the vessel when a large array of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 51002 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

airguns is operating than when it is as the operating airgun array passed by sensory cells, residual muscular activity silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Stone and the animals. Seal sighting rates at the in the middle ear, displacement of Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008; Moulton and water surface were lower during airgun certain inner ear membranes, increased Holst, 2010). In most cases, the array operations than during no-airgun blood flow, and post-stimulatory avoidance radii for delphinids appear to periods in each survey year except 1997. reduction in both efferent and sensory be small, on the order of one km or less, Similarly, seals are often very tolerant of neural output (Southall et al., 2007). and some individuals show no apparent pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices The amplitude, duration, frequency, avoidance. (Mate and Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and temporal pattern, and energy Captive bottlenose dolphins exhibited Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995). distribution of sound exposure all can changes in behavior when exposed to However, initial telemetry work affect the amount of associated TS and strong pulsed sounds similar in suggests that avoidance and other the frequency range in which it occurs. duration to those typically used in behavioral reactions by two other As amplitude and duration of sound seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 2000, species of seals to small airgun sources exposure increase, so, generally, does 2002, 2005). However, the animals may at times be stronger than evident to the amount of TS, along with the tolerated high received levels of sound date from visual studies of pinniped recovery time. For intermittent sounds, (pk–pk level >200 dB re 1 mPa) before reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., less TS could occur than compared to a exhibiting aversive behaviors. 1998). continuous exposure with the same energy (some recovery could occur Porpoises Hearing Impairment between intermittent exposures Results for porpoises depend upon Exposure to high intensity sound for depending on the duty cycle between the species. The limited available data a sufficient duration may result in sounds) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, suggest that harbor porpoises show auditory effects such as a noise-induced 1997). For example, one short but loud stronger avoidance of seismic operations threshold shift—an increase in the (higher SPL) sound exposure may than do Dall’s porpoises (Stone, 2003; auditory threshold after exposure to induce the same impairment as one MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors longer but softer sound, which in turn Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, that influence the amount of threshold may cause more impairment than a 2006). Dall’s porpoises seem relatively shift include the amplitude, duration, series of several intermittent softer tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean frequency content, temporal pattern, sounds with the same total energy and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, and energy distribution of noise (Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS 2006), although they too have been exposure. The magnitude of hearing is temporary, prolonged exposure to observed to avoid large arrays of threshold shift normally decreases over sounds strong enough to elicit TTS, or operating airguns (Calambokidis and time following cessation of the noise shorter-term exposure to sound levels Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). exposure. The amount of threshold shift well above the TTS threshold, can cause This apparent difference in just after exposure is the initial PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals responsiveness of these two porpoise threshold shift. If the threshold shift (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of species is consistent with their relative eventually returns to zero (i.e., the EMALL’ssurvey, NMFS does not expect responsiveness to boat traffic and some threshold returns to the pre-exposure that animals would experience levels other acoustic sources (Richardson et value), it is a temporary threshold shift high enough or durations long enough al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007). (Southall et al., 2007). to result in PTS given that the airgun is Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of Pinnipeds a very low volume airgun, and the use hearing)—When animals exhibit of the airgun will be restricted to seven Pinnipeds are not likely to show a reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds days in a small geographic area. strong avoidance reaction to the airgun must be louder for an animal to detect PTS is considered auditory injury sources proposed for use. Visual them) following exposure to an intense (Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable monitoring from seismic vessels has sound or sound for long duration, it is damage to the inner or outer cochlear shown only slight (if any) avoidance of referred to as a noise-induced threshold hair cells may cause PTS; however, airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if shift (TS). An animal can experience other mechanisms are also involved, any) changes in behavior. Monitoring temporary threshold shift (TTS) or such as exceeding the elastic limits of work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS certain tissues and membranes in the 1996–2001 provided considerable can last from minutes or hours to days middle and inner ears and resultant information regarding the behavior of (i.e., there is complete recovery), can changes in the chemical composition of Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and an animal might only have a temporary 2007). Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects loss of hearing sensitivity between the Although the published body of usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can scientific literature contains numerous airguns with total volumes of 560 to be of varying amounts (for example, an theoretical studies and discussion 1,500 in 3. The combined results suggest animal’s hearing sensitivity might be papers on hearing impairments that can that some seals avoid the immediate reduced initially by only 6 dB or occur with exposure to a loud sound, area around seismic vessels. In most reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, only a few studies provide empirical survey years, ringed seal (Phoca but some recovery is possible. PTS can information on the levels at which hispida) sightings tended to be farther also occur in a specific frequency range noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity away from the seismic vessel when the and amount as mentioned above for occurs in non-human animals. airguns were operating than when they TTS. Recent studies by Kujawa and were not (Moulton and Lawson, 2002). The following physiological Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011) However, these avoidance movements mechanisms are thought to play a role found that despite completely reversible were relatively small, on the order of in inducing auditory TS: Effects to threshold shifts that leave cochlear 100 m (328 ft) to a few hundreds of sensory hair cells in the inner ear that sensory cells intact, large threshold meters, and many seals remained within reduce their sensitivity, modification of shifts could cause synaptic level 100–200 m (328–656 ft) of the trackline the chemical environment within the changes and delayed cochlear nerve

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51003

degeneration in mice and guinea pigs, and operating pressure varied from 40– effects or injuries that theoretically respectively. NMFS notes that the high 150 in3 and 1000–2000 psi, respectively. might occur in mammals close to a level of TTS that led to the synaptic After three years and 180 sessions, the strong sound source include stress, changes shown in these studies is in the authors observed no significant TTS at neurological effects, bubble formation, range of the high degree of TTS that any test frequency, for any combinations and other types of organ or tissue Southall et al. (2007) used to calculate of air gun volume, pressure, or damage. Some marine mammal species PTS levels. It is unknown whether proximity to the dolphin during (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially smaller levels of TTS would lead to behavioral tests (Schlundt, et al., 2013). susceptible to injury and/or stranding similar changes. NMFS, however, Schlundt et al. (2013) suggest that the when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. acknowledges the complexity of noise potential for airguns to cause hearing Classic stress responses begin when exposure on the nervous system, and loss in dolphins is lower than an animal’s central nervous system will re-examine this issue as more data previously predicted, perhaps as a result perceives a potential threat to its become available. of the low-frequency content of air gun homeostasis. That perception triggers For marine mammals, published data impulses compared to the high- stress responses regardless of whether a are limited to the captive bottlenose frequency hearing ability of dolphins. stimulus actually threatens the animal; dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Marine mammal hearing plays a the mere perception of a threat is Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et critical role in communication with sufficient to trigger a stress response al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, conspecifics, and interpretation of (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; environmental cues for purposes such Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, as predator avoidance and prey capture. nervous system perceives a threat, it 2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Depending on the degree (elevation of mounts a biological response or defense Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et al., threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery that consists of a combination of the 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For time), and frequency range of TTS, and four general biological defense pinnipeds in water, data are limited to the context in which it is experienced, responses: Behavioral responses; measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an TTS can have effects on marine autonomic nervous system responses; elephant seal, and California sea lions mammals ranging from discountable to neuroendocrine responses; or immune (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et serious (similar to those discussed in responses. al., 2012b). auditory masking, below). For example, In the case of many stressors, an Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold a marine mammal may be able to readily animal’s first and most economical (in shift (TS) of a harbor porpoise after compensate for a brief, relatively small terms of biotic costs) response is exposing it to airgun noise with a amount of TTS in a non-critical behavioral avoidance of the potential received sound pressure level (SPL) at frequency range that occurs during a stressor or avoidance of continued 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 mPa, which time where ambient noise is lower and exposure to a stressor. An animal’s corresponds to a sound exposure level there are not as many competing sounds second line of defense to stressors of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after integrating present. Alternatively, a larger amount involves the sympathetic part of the exposure. NMFS currently uses the root- and longer duration of TTS sustained autonomic nervous system and the mean-square (rms) of received SPL at during time when communication is classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response, 180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 mPa as the critical for successful mother/calf which includes the cardiovascular threshold above which permanent interactions could have more serious system, the gastrointestinal system, the threshold shift (PTS) could occur for impacts. Also, depending on the degree exocrine glands, and the adrenal cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. and frequency range, the effects of PTS medulla to produce changes in heart Because the airgun noise is a broadband on an animal could range in severity, rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal impulse, one cannot directly determine although it is considered generally more activity that humans commonly the equivalent of rms SPL from the serious because it is a permanent associate with stress. These responses reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, condition. Of note, reduced hearing have a relatively short duration and may applying a conservative conversion sensitivity as a simple function of aging or may not have significant long-term factor of 16 dB for broadband signals has been observed in marine mammals, effects on an animal’s welfare. from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., as well as humans and other taxa An animal’s third line of defense to 2000) to correct for the difference (Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer stressors involves its neuroendocrine or between peak-to-peak levels reported in that strategies exist for coping with this sympathetic nervous systems; the Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the condition to some degree, though likely system that has received the most study rms SPL for TTS would be not without cost. has been the hypothalmus-pituitary- approximately 184 dB re: 1 mPa, and the Given the higher level of sound adrenal (HPA) system (also known as received levels associated with PTS necessary to cause PTS as compared the HPA axis in mammals or the (Level A harassment) would be higher. with TTS, it is considerably less likely hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis This is still above NMFS’ current 180 that PTS would occur during the survey; in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress dB rms re: 1 mPa threshold for injury. TTS is also unlikely. Cetaceans responses associated with the However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of generally avoid the immediate area autonomic nervous system, the pituitary harbor porpoises is lower than other around operating seismic vessels, as do hormones regulate virtually all cetacean species empirically tested some other marine mammals. Some neuroendocrine functions affected by (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to stress—including immune competence, al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012). airguns, but their avoidance reactions reproduction, metabolism, and A recent study on bottlenose dolphins are generally not as strong or consistent behavior. Stress-induced changes in the (Schlundt, et al., 2013) measured compared to cetacean reactions. secretion of pituitary hormones have hearing thresholds at multiple Non-auditory Physical Effects: Non- been implicated in failed reproduction frequencies to determine the amount of auditory physical effects might occur in (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered TTS induced before and after exposure marine mammals exposed to strong metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), to a sequence of impulses produced by underwater pulsed sound. Possible reduced immune competence (Blecha, a seismic air gun. The air gun volume types of non-auditory physiological 2000), and behavioral disturbance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 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 exposures and physiological responses evidence of this upon exposure to glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, that are indicative of stress responses in airgun pulses. corticosterone, and aldosterone in humans (e.g., elevated respiration and In general, there are few data about marine mammals; see Romano et al., increased heart rates). Jones (1998) the potential for strong, anthropogenic 2004) have been equated with stress for reported on reductions in human underwater sounds to cause non- many years. performance when faced with acute, auditory physical effects in marine The primary distinction between repetitive exposures to acoustic mammals. Such effects, if they occur at stress (which is adaptive and does not disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) all, would presumably be limited to normally place an animal at risk) and reported on the physiological stress short distances and to activities that distress is the biotic cost of the responses of osprey to low-level aircraft extend over a prolonged period. The response. During a stress response, an noise while Krausman et al. (2004) available data do not allow animal uses glycogen stores that the reported on the auditory and physiology identification of a specific exposure body quickly replenishes after stress responses of endangered Sonoran level above which non-auditory effects alleviation of the stressor. In such pronghorn to military overflights. Smith can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) circumstances, the cost of the stress et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noise- or any meaningful quantitative response would not pose a risk to the induced physiological transient stress predictions of the numbers (if any) of animal’s welfare. However, when an responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., marine mammals that might be affected animal does not have sufficient energy goldfish) that accompanied short- and in those ways. There is no definitive reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of long-term hearing losses. Welch and evidence that any of these effects occur a stress response, it diverts energy Welch (1970) reported physiological even for marine mammals in close resources from other biotic functions, and behavioral stress responses that proximity to large arrays of airguns. In which impair those functions that accompanied damage to the inner ears addition, marine mammals that show experience the diversion. For example, of fish and several mammals. behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, when mounting a stress response diverts Hearing is one of the primary senses including some pinnipeds, are unlikely energy away from growth in young marine mammals use to gather to incur non-auditory impairment or animals, those animals may experience information about their environment other physical effects. The low volume stunted growth (McEwen and Wingfield, and communicate with conspecifics. of the airgun proposed for this activity 2003). When mounting a stress response Although empirical information on the combined with the limited scope of use diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s relationship between sensory makes non-auditory physical effects reproductive success and fitness will impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic from airgun use, including stress, suffer. In these cases, the animals will masking) on marine mammals remains unlikely. Therefore, we do not have entered a pre-pathological or limited, we assume that reducing a anticipate such effects would occur pathological state called ‘‘distress’’ marine mammal’s ability to gather given the brief duration of exposure (sensu Seyle, 1950) or ‘‘allostatic information about its environment and during the survey. loading’’ (sensu McEwen and Wingfield, communicate with other members of its Stranding and Mortality 2003). This pathological state will last species would induce stress, based on until the animal replenishes its biotic data that terrestrial animals exhibit When a living or dead marine reserves sufficient to restore normal those responses under similar mammal swims or floats onto shore and function. Note that these examples conditions (NRC, 2003) and because becomes ‘‘beached’’ or incapable of involved a long-term (days or weeks) marine mammals use hearing as their returning to sea, the event is a stress response exposure to stimuli. primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, ‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin Relationships between these NMFS assumes that acoustic exposures and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and physiological mechanisms, animal sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The behavior, and the costs of stress would be accompanied by physiological legal definition for a stranding under the responses have also been documented stress responses. More importantly, MMPA is that ‘‘(A) a marine mammal is fairly well through controlled marine mammals might experience dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of experiment; because this physiology stress responses at received levels lower the United States; or (ii) in waters under exists in every vertebrate that has been than those necessary to trigger onset the jurisdiction of the United States studied, it is not surprising that stress TTS. Based on empirical studies of the (including any navigable waters); or (B) responses and their costs have been time required to recover from stress a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on documented in both laboratory and free- responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also a beach or shore of the United States living animals (for examples see, assumes that stress responses could and is unable to return to the water; (ii) Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; persist beyond the time interval on a beach or shore of the United States Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., required for animals to recover from and, although able to return to the 2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens TTS and might result in pathological water, is in need of apparent medical et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, and pre-pathological states that would attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 2000). Although no information has be as significant as behavioral responses jurisdiction of the United States been collected on the physiological to TTS. (including any navigable waters), but is responses of marine mammals to Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and unable to return to its natural habitat anthropogenic sound exposure, studies direct noise-induced bubble formations under its own power or without of other marine animals and terrestrial (Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in assistance.’’ animals would lead us to expect some the case of exposure to an impulsive Marine mammals strand for a variety marine mammals to experience broadband source like an airgun array. of reasons, such as infectious agents, physiological stress responses and, If seismic surveys disrupt diving biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery perhaps, physiological responses that patterns of deep-diving species, this interaction, ship strike, unusual would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon might result in bubble formation and a oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure to anthropogenic sounds. form of the bends, as speculated to exposure, or combinations of these For example, Jansen (1998) reported occur in beaked whales exposed to stressors sustained concurrently or in on the relationship between acoustic sonar. However, there is no specific series. However, the cause or causes of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51005

most strandings are unknown (Geraci et kHz, which is lower than the maximum occurrences. While duration is al., 1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980; sensitivity hearing range of any the local dependent on sediment type, the Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest species (belugas—40–130 kHz;, killer driving mechanism, which emits sound that the physiology, behavior, habitat whales—7–30 kHz; harbor porpoise— at a source level of 187dB re: 1mPa, will relationships, age, or condition of 100–140 kHz; and harbor seals—10–30 only bore for 1 to 2 minutes. The sound cetaceans may cause them to strand or kHz; Wartzok and Ketten 1999, Southall is emitted at a frequency of 10 Hz to 20 might pre-dispose them to strand when et al. 2007, Kastelein et al. 2002). While kHz. Cores will be bored at exposed to another phenomenon. These the chirper is not as loud (202 dB re 1 approximately every 4 km along the suggestions are consistent with the mPa-m [rms]), it does operate at a higher pipeline corridor, for about 22 cores in conclusions of numerous other studies frequency range (2–16 kHz), and within that area. Approximately 33 cores will that have demonstrated that the maximum sensitive range of all of be taken in the Marine Terminal area. combinations of dissimilar stressors the local species except beluga whales. Masking: It is unlikely that masking commonly combine to kill an animal or Marine mammal communications will occur due to vibracore operations. dramatically reduce its fitness, even would not likely be masked appreciably Chorney et al. (2011) conducted sound though one exposure without the other by the profiler’s signals given the measurements on an operating does not produce the same result directionality of the signal and the brief vibracorer in Alaska and found that it (Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries period when an individual mammal is emitted a sound pressure level at 1-m et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley likely to be within its beam. source of 188 dB re 1 mPa-m (rms), with et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, Furthermore, despite the fact that the a frequency range of between 10 Hz and 2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., profiler overlaps with hearing ranges of 20 kHz. While the frequency range 2004). Given the low volume and source many marine mammal species in the overlaps the lower ends of the level of the proposed airgun, standing area, the profiler’s signals do not maximum sensitivity hearing ranges of and mortality are not anticipated due to overlap with the predominant harbor porpoises, killer whales, and use of the airgun proposed for this frequencies in the calls, which would harbor seals, and the continuous sound activity. avoid significant masking. extends 2.54 km (1.6 mi) to the 120 dB Behavioral Responses: Responses to threshold, the vibracorer will operate 2. Potential Effects of Other Acoustic the profiler are likely to be similar to the about the one or two minutes it takes to Devices other pulsed sources discussed earlier if drive the core pipe 7 m (20 ft) into the Sub-Bottom Profiler received at the same levels. The sediment, and approximately twice per behavioral response of local marine day. Therefore, there is very little EMALL would also operate a sub- mammals to the operation of the sub- opportunity for this activity to mask the bottom profiler chirp and boomer from bottom profilers is expected to be communication of local marine the source vessel during the proposed similar to that of the small airgun. The mammals. survey. The chirp’s sounds are very odontocetes are likely to avoid the sub- Behavioral Response: It is unlikely short pulses, occurring for one ms, six bottom profiler activity, especially the that vibracoring will elicit behavioral times per second. Most of the energy in naturally shy harbor porpoise, while the responses from marine mammal species the sound pulses emitted by the profiler harbor seals might be attracted to them in the area. An analysis of similar is at 2–6 kHz, and the beam is directed out of curiosity. However, because the survey activity in New Zealand downward. The chirp has a maximum sub-bottom profilers operate from a classified the likely effects from source level of 202 dB re: 1 mPa, with moving vessel, and the maximum radius vibracore and similar activity to be some a tilt angle of 90 degrees below to the 160 dB harassment threshold is habitat degradation and prey species horizontal and a beam width of 24 only 263 m (863 ft), the area and time effects, but primarily behavioral degrees. The sub-bottom profiler boomer that this equipment would be affecting responses, although the species in the will shoot approximately every 3.125m, a given location is very small. analyzed area were different to those with shots lasting 1.5 to 2 seconds. Most Hearing Impairment and Other found in Cook Inlet (Thompson, 2012). of the energy in the sound pulses Physical Effects: It is unlikely that the There are no data on the behavioral emitted by the boomer is concentrated sub-bottom profilers produce sound response to vibracore activity of marine between 0.5 and 6 kHz, with a source levels strong enough to cause hearing mammals in Cook Inlet. The closest level of 205dB re: 1mPa. The tilt of the impairment or other physical injuries analog to vibracoring might be boomer is 90 degrees below horizontal, even in an animal that is (briefly) in a exploratory drilling, although there is a but the emission is omnidirectional. position near the source (Wood et al., notable difference in magnitude Kremser et al., (2005) noted that the 2012). The likelihood of marine between an oil and gas drilling probability of a cetacean swimming mammals moving away from the source operation and collecting sediment through the area of exposure when a make if further unlikely that a marine samples with a vibracorer. Thomas et al. bottom profiler emits a pulse is small— mammal would be able to approach (1990) played back drilling sound to because if the animal was in the area, it close to the transducers. four captive beluga whales and found would have to pass the transducer at Animals may avoid the area around no statistical difference in swim close range in order to be subjected to the survey vessels, thereby reducing patterns, social groups, respiration and sound levels that could cause temporary exposure. Any disturbance to marine dive rates, or stress hormone levels threshold shift and would likely exhibit mammals is likely to be in the form of before and during playbacks. There is avoidance behavior to the area near the temporary avoidance or alteration of no reason to believe that beluga whales transducer rather than swim through at opportunistic foraging behavior near the or any other marine mammal exposed to such a close range. survey location. vibracoring sound would behave any Masking: Both the chirper and boomer differently, especially since vibracoring sub-bottom profilers produce impulsive Vibracore occurs for only one or two minutes. sound exceeding 160 dB re 1 mPa-m EMALL would conduct vibracoring in Hearing Impairment and Other (rms). The louder boomer operates at a a corridor across a northern portion of Physical Effects: The vibracorer operates source value of 205 dB re 1 mPa-m (rms), Cook Inlet and near the marine terminal for only one or two minutes at a time but with a frequency between 0.5 and 6 area for a total of 55 vibracoring with a 1-m source of 187.4 dB re 1 mPa-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 51006 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

m (rms). It is neither loud enough nor would prevent physical damage to Porpoises: Harbor porpoises are often does it operate for a long enough marine mammals. The vibracoring seen changing direction in the presence duration to induce either TTS or PTS. would also be unlikely to have the of vessel traffic. Avoidance has been capability of causing physical damage to documented up to 1km away from an Stranding and Mortality marine mammals because of its low approaching vessel, but the avoidance Stress, Stranding, and Mortality intensity and short duration. response is strengthened in closer Safety zones will be established to proximity to vessels (Barlow, 1998; 3. Potential Effects of Vessel Movement prevent acoustical injury to local marine Palka, 1993). This avoidance behavior is and Collisions mammals, especially injury that could not consistent across all porpoises, as indirectly lead to mortality. Also, G&G Vessel movement in the vicinity of Dall’s porpoises have been observed sound is not expected to cause resonate marine mammals has the potential to approaching boats. effects to gas-filled spaces or airspaces result in either a behavioral response or Toothed whales: In summary, toothed in marine mammals based on the a direct physical interaction. We discuss whales sometimes show no avoidance research of Finneran (2003) on beluga both scenarios here. reaction to vessels, or even approach whales showing that the tissue and Behavioral Responses to Vessel them. However, avoidance can occur, other body masses dampen any Movement: There are limited data especially in response to vessels of potential effects of resonance on ear concerning marine mammal behavioral types used to chase or hunt the animals. cavities, lungs, and intestines. Chronic responses to vessel traffic and vessel This may cause temporary exposure to sound could lead to noise, and a lack of consensus among displacement, but we know of no clear physiological stress eventually causing scientists with respect to what these evidence that toothed whales have hormonal imbalances (NRC 2005). If responses mean or whether they result abandoned significant parts of their survival demands are already high, and/ in short-term or long-term adverse range because of vessel traffic. or additional stressors are present, the effects. In those cases where there is a Behavioral responses to stimuli are ability of the animal to cope decreases, busy shipping lane or where there is a complex and influenced to varying leading to pathological conditions or large amount of vessel traffic, marine degrees by a number of factors, such as death (NRC 2005). Potential effects may mammals may experience acoustic species, behavioral contexts, be greatest where sound disturbance can masking (Hildebrand, 2005) if they are geographical regions, source disrupt feeding patterns including present in the area (e.g., killer whales in characteristics (moving or stationary, displacement from critical feeding Puget Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et speed, direction, etc.), prior experience grounds. However, all G&G exposure to al., 2008). In cases where vessels of the animal and physical status of the marine mammals would be of duration actively approach marine mammals animal. For example, studies have measured in minutes. (e.g., whale watching or dolphin shown that beluga whales’ reactions Specific sound-related processes that watching boats), scientists have varied when exposed to vessel noise lead to strandings and mortality are not documented that animals exhibit altered and traffic. In some cases, naive beluga well documented, but may include (1) behavior such as increased swimming whales exhibited rapid swimming from swimming in avoidance of a sound into speed, erratic movement, and active ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7 shallow water; (2) a change in behavior avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983; mi) away, and showed changes in (such as a change in diving behavior) Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, surfacing, breathing, diving, and group that might contribute to tissue damage, 1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams et composition in the Canadian high gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage, reduced blow interval (Ritcher et al., et al., 1990). In other cases, beluga or other forms of trauma; (3) a 2003), disruption of normal social whales were more tolerant of vessels, physiological change such as a behaviors (Lusseau, 2003; 2006), and the but responded differentially to certain vestibular response leading to a shift of behavioral activities which may vessels and operating characteristics by behavioral change or stress-induced increase energetic costs (Constantine et reducing their calling rates (especially hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn al., 2003; 2004). A detailed review of older animals) in the St. Lawrence River to tissue damage; and, (4) tissue damage marine mammal reactions to ships and where vessel traffic is common (Blane directly from sound exposure, such as boats is available in Richardson et al. and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, through acoustically mediated bubble (1995). For each of the marine mammal Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed formation and growth or acoustic taxonomy groups, Richardson et al. when surrounded by fishing vessels and resonance of tissues (Wood et al. 2012). (1995) provides the following resisted dispersal even when Some of these mechanisms are unlikely assessment regarding reactions to vessel purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, to apply in the case of impulse G&G traffic: 1971). sounds, especially since airguns and Pinnipeds: Reactions by pinnipeds to In reviewing more than 25 years of sub-bottom profilers produce broadband vessel disturbance largely involve whale observation data, Watkins (1986) sound with low pressure rise. relocation. Harbor seals hauled out on concluded that whale reactions to vessel Strandings to date which have been mud flats have been documented traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous attributed to sound exposure related to returning to the water in response to experience and current activity: date from military exercises using nearing boat traffic. Vessels that Habituation often occurred rapidly, narrowband mid-frequency sonar with a approach haulouts slowly may also attention to other stimuli or much greater likelihood to cause elicit alert reactions without flushing preoccupation with other activities physical damage (Balcomb and Claridge from the haulout. Small boats with sometimes overcame their interest or 2001, NOAA and USN, 2001, slow, constant speed elicit the least wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed Hildebrand 2005). noticeable reactions. However, in that over the years of exposure to ships The low intensity, low frequency, Alaska specifically, harbor seals are in the Cape Cod area, minke whales broadband sound associated with documented to tolerate fishing vessels changed from frequent positive interest airguns and sub-bottom profilers, with no discernable reactions, and (e.g., approaching vessels) to generally combined with the shutdown safety habituation is common (Burns in uninterested reactions; fin whales zone mitigation measure for the airgun Johnson et al., 1989). changed from mostly negative (e.g.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51007

avoidance) to uninterested reactions; mph; 13 kts). Given the slow vessel 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous streams. right whales apparently continued the speeds necessary for data acquisition, Several anadromous streams (Three- same variety of responses (negative, ship strike is unlikely to occur during mile Creek, Indian Creek, and two uninterested, and positive responses) this survey. unnamed streams) enter the Cook Inlet with little change; and humpbacks within the survey areas. Other Entanglement dramatically changed from mixed anadromous streams are located within responses that were often negative to Entanglement can occur if wildlife 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of the survey areas. The reactions that were often strongly becomes immobilized in survey lines, survey program will not prevent beluga positive. Watkins (1986) summarized cables, nets, or other equipment that is access to the mouths of these streams that ‘‘whales near shore, even in regions moving through the water column. The and will result in no short-term or long- with low vessel traffic, generally have proposed survey would require towing term loss of intertidal or subtidal waters become less wary of boats and their approximately 150 ft of cables. This size that are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth and noises, and they have appeared to be of the array generally carries a lower within 8.0 km (5.0 mi) of anadromous less easily disturbed than previously. In risk of entanglement for marine streams. Minor seafloor impacts will particular locations with intense mammals. Wildlife, especially slow occur in these areas from grab samples, shipping and repeated approaches by moving individuals, such as large PCPTs, vibracores, or geotechnical boats (such as the whale-watching areas whales, have a low probability of borings but will have no effect on the of Stellwagen Bank), more and more entanglement due to the low amount of area as beluga habitat once the vessel or whales had positive reactions to familiar slack in the lines, slow speed of the jack-up platform has left. The survey vessels, and they also occasionally survey vessel, and onboard monitoring. program will have no effect on this approached other boats and yachts in Pinnipeds and porpoises are the least habitat. the same ways.’’ likely to entangle in equipment, as most Cook Inlet beluga whales may avoid documented cases of entanglement areas ensonified by the geophysical or Vessel Strike involve fishing gear and prey species geotechnical activities that generate Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause (Gales et al., 2003). There are no sound with frequencies within the major wounds, which may lead to the reported cases of entanglement from beluga hearing range and at levels above death of the animal. An animal at the geophysical equipment in the Cook Inlet threshold values. This includes the surface could be struck directly by a area. chirp sub-bottom profiler with a radius vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal of 184 m (604 ft), the boomer sub- bottom of a vessel, or a vessel’s Habitat bottom profiler with a radius of 263 m propeller could injure an animal just (863 ft), the airgun with a radius of 300 below the surface. The severity of The G&G Program survey areas are m (984 ft) and the vibracores with a injuries typically depends on the size primarily within upper Cook Inlet, radius of 2.54 km (1.58 mi). The sub- and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and although the Marine Terminal survey bottom profilers and the airgun will be Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; area is located near Nikiski just south of operated from a vessel moving at speeds Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). the East Foreland (technically in Lower of about 4 kt. The operation of a The most vulnerable marine mammals Cook Inlet), which includes habitat for vibracore has a duration of are those that spend extended periods of prey species of marine mammals, approximately 1–2 minutes. All of these time at the surface in order to restore including fish as well as invertebrates activities will be conducted in relatively oxygen levels within their tissues after eaten by Cook Inlet beluga whales. This open areas of the Cook Inlet within deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In area contains Critical Habitat for Cook Critical Habitat Area 2. Given the size addition, some baleen whales, such as Inlet belugas, is near the breeding and openness of the Cook Inlet in the the North Atlantic right whale, seem grounds for the local harbor seal survey areas, and the relatively small generally unresponsive to vessel sound, population, and serves as an occasional area and mobile/temporary nature of the making them more susceptible to vessel feeding ground for killer whales and zones of ensonification, the generation collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These harbor porpoises. Cook Inlet is a large of sound by the G&G activities is not species are primarily large, slow moving subarctic estuary roughly 299 km (186 expected to result in any restriction of whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., mi) in length and averaging 96 km (60 passage of belugas within or between bottlenose dolphin) move quickly mi) in width. It extends from the city of critical habitat areas. The jack-up through the water column and are often Anchorage at its northern end and flows platform from which the geotechnical seen riding the bow wave of large ships. into the Gulf of Alaska at its borings will be conducted will be Marine mammal responses to vessels southernmost end. For descriptive attached to the seafloor with legs, and may include avoidance and changes in purposes, Cook Inlet is separated into will be in place at a given location for dive pattern (NRC, 2003). unique upper and lower sections, up to 4–5 days, but given its small size An examination of all known ship divided at the East and West Forelands, (Table 4 in the application) would not strikes from all shipping sources where the opposing peninsulas create a result in any obstruction of passage by (civilian and military) indicates vessel natural waistline in the length of the belugas. speed is a principal factor in whether a waterway, measuring approximately 16 Upper Cook Inlet comprises the area vessel strike results in death (Knowlton km (10 mi) across (Mulherin et al. 2001). between Point Campbell (Anchorage) and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Potential effects on beluga habitat down to the Forelands, and is roughly Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and would be limited to noise effects on 95 km (59 mi) in length and 24.9 km Taggart, 2007). In assessing records with prey; direct impact to benthic habitat (15.5 mi) in width (Mulherin et al. known vessel speeds, Laist et al. (2001) from jack-up platform leg placement, 2001). Five major rivers (Knik, found a direct relationship between the and sampling with grabs, coring, and Matanuska, Susitna, Little Susitna, and occurrence of a whale strike and the boring; and small discharges of drill Beluga) deliver freshwater to upper speed of the vessel involved in the cuttings and drilling mud associated Cook Inlet, carrying a heavy annual collision. The authors concluded that with the borings. Portions of the survey sediment load of over 40 million tons of most deaths occurred when a vessel was areas include waters of Cook Inlet that eroded materials and glacial silt (Brabets traveling in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 are <9.1 m (30 ft) in depth and within 1999). As a result, upper Cook Inlet is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 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 go slack before rotating around into an 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and again confined to 5.0 ft) in depth. It is characterized by opposite direction (Gatto 1976, m (16 ft). Further, Greenlaw et al. (1988) shoals, mudflats, and a wide coastal Mulherin et al. 2001). Depths in the found no evidence of gross histological shelf, less than 17.9 m (59 ft) deep, central portion of lower Cook Inlet are damage to eggs and larvae of northern extending from the eastern shore. A 60–80 m (197–262 ft) and decrease anchovy exposed to seismic air guns, deep trough exists between Trading Bay steadily toward the shores (Muench and concluded that noticeable effects and the Middle Ground Shoal, ranging 1981). Bottom sediments in the lower would result only from multiple, close from 35 to 77 m (114–253 ft) deep inlet are coarse gravel and sand that exposures. Based on these results, much (NOAA Nautical Chart 16660). The grade to finer sand and mud toward the lower energy impulsive geophysical substrate consists of a mixture of coarse south (Bouma 1978). equipment planned for this program gravels, cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay, Coarser substrate support a wide would not damage larval fish or any and silt (Bouma et al. 1978, Rappeport variety of invertebrates and fish other marine mammal prey resource. 1982). including Pacific halibut, Dungeness Potential damage to the Cook Inlet Upper Cook Inlet experiences some of crab, tanner crab, pandalid shrimp, benthic community will be limited to the most extreme tides in the world, Pacific cod, and rock sole, while the the actual surface area of the four spud demonstrated by a mean tidal range soft-bottom sand and silt communities cans that form the ‘‘foot’’ of each 0.762- from 4.0 m (13 ft) at the Gulf of Alaska are dominated by polychaetes, bivalves m (30-in) diameter leg, the 42 0.1524-m end to 8.8 m (29 ft) near Anchorage and other flatfish (Field and Walker (6-in) diameter borings, and the 55 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013). 2003). These species constitute prey 0.0762-m (3-in) diameter vibracore Tidal currents reach 3.9 kts per second species for several marine mammals in samplings (plus several grab and PCPT (Mulherin et al. 2001) in upper Cook Cook Inlet, including pinnipeds and samples). Collectively, these samples Inlet, increasing to 5.7–7.7 kts per Cook Inlet belugas. Sea urchins and sea would temporarily damage about a second near the Forelands where the cucumbers are important otter prey and hundred square meters of benthic inlet is constricted. Each tidal cycle are found in shell debris communities. habitat relative to the size (nearly 21,000 creates significant turbulence and Razor clams are found all along the km2/8,108 mi2) of Cook Inlet. Overall, vertical mixing of the water column in beaches of the Kenai Peninsula. In sediment sampling and acoustical the upper inlet (U.S. Army Corps of general, the lower Cook Inlet marine effects on prey resources will have a Engineers 2013), and are reversing, invertebrate community is of low negligible effect at most on the marine meaning that they are marked by a abundance, dominated by polychaetes, mammal habitat within the G&G period of slack tide followed an until reaching the mouth of the inlet Program survey area. Some prey acceleration in the opposite direction (Saupe et al. 2005). Overall, the lower resources might be temporarily (Mulherin et al. 2001). Cook Inlet marine ecosystem is fed by displaced, but no long-term effects are Because of scouring, mixing, and midwater communities of expected. sediment transport from these currents, phytoplankton and zooplankton, with The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program the marine invertebrate community is the latter composed mostly of copepods will result in a number of minor very limited (Pentec 2005). Of the 50 and barnacle and crab larvae (Damkaer discharges to the waters of Cook Inlet. stations sampled by Saupe et al. 2005 1977, English 1980). Discharges associated with the for marine invertebrates in Southcentral G&G Program activities that could geotechnical borings will include: (1) Alaska, their upper Cook Inlet station potentially impact marine mammal The discharge of drill cuttings and had by far the lowest abundance and habitats include sediment sampling drilling fluids and (2) the discharge of diversity. Further, the fish community (vibracore, boring, grab sampling) on the deck drainage (runoff of precipitation of upper Cook Inlet is characterized sea bottom, placement of the jack-up and deck wash water) from the largely by migratory fish—eulachon and platform spud cans, and acoustical geotechnical drilling platform. Other Pacific salmon—returning to spawning injury of prey resources. However, there vessels associated with the G&G surveys rivers, or outmigrating salmon smolts. are few benthic resources in the survey will discharge wastewaters that are Moulton (1997) documented only 18 area that could be impacted by normally associated with the operation fish species in upper Cook Inlet collection of the small samples (Saupe of vessels in transit including deck compared to at least 50 species found in et al. 2005). drainage, ballast water, bilge water, non- lower Cook Inlet (Robards et al. 1999). Acoustical effects to marine mammal contact cooling water, and gray water. Lower Cook Inlet extends from the prey resources are also limited. The discharges of drill cuttings, Forelands southwest to the inlet mouth Christian et al. (2004) studied seismic drilling fluids, and deck drainage demarked by an approximate line energy impacts on male snow crabs and associated with the geotechnical borings between Cape Douglas and English Bay. found no significant increases in will be within limitations authorized by Water circulation in lower Cook Inlet is physiological stress due to exposure to the Alaska Department of dominated by the Alaska Coastal high sound pressure levels. No Environmental Conservation under the Current (ACC) that flows northward acoustical impact studies have been Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination along the shores of the Kenai Peninsula conducted to date on the above fish System. The drill cuttings consist of until it turns westward and is mixed by species, but studies have been natural geologic materials of the seafloor the combined influences of freshwater conducted on Atlantic cod and sardine. sediments brought to the surface via the input from upper Cook Inlet, wind, Davis et al. (1998) cited various studies drill bit/drill stem of the rotary drilling topography, tidal surges, and the that found no effects to Atlantic cod operation, will be relatively minor in coriolis effect (Field and Walker 2003, eggs, larvae, and fry when received volume, and deposit over a very small MMS 1996). Upwelling by the ACC levels were 222 dB. Effects found were area of Cook Inlet seafloor. The drilling brings nutrient-rich waters to lower to larval fish within about 5.0 m (16 ft), fluids which are used to lubricate the Cook Inlet and contributes to a and from air guns with volumes bit, stabilize the hole, and viscosify the biologically rich and productive ecology between 49,661 and 65,548 cm3 (3,000 slurry for transport of the solids to the (Sambrotto and Lorenzen 1986). Tidal and 4,000 in3). Similarly, effects to surface will consist of seawater and guar currents average 2–3 kt per second and sardine were greatest on eggs and 2-day gum. Guar gum is a high-molecular are rotary in that they do not completely larvae, but these effects were greatest at weight polysaccharide (galactose and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51009

mannose units) derived from the ground Before chirper, boomer, airgun, and be paired with experienced PSOs to seeds of the plant Cyampsis gonolobus. vibracoring operations begin each day ensure that the quality of marine It is a non-toxic fluid also used as a food and before restarting operations after a mammal observations and data additive in soups, drinks, breads, and shutdown of 15 minutes or greater, the recording are consistent. meat products. PSOs will ‘‘clear’’ both the Level A and All field data collected will be entered Vessel discharges will be authorized Level B Zones of Influence (ZOIs—area by the end of the day into a custom under the U.S. Environmental from the source to the 160dB or 180/ database using a notebook computer. Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National 190dB isopleths) of marine mammals by Weather data relative to viewing Pollutant Discharge Elimination System intensively surveying these ZOIs prior conditions will be collected hourly, on (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) to activity to confirm that marine rotation, and when sightings occur and for Discharges Incidental to the Normal mammals are not seen in the applicable include the following: Operation of Vessels. Each vessel will area. All three geophysical activities • Sea state; have obtained authorization under the (boomer, chirp, airgun) will be shut • Wind speed and direction; VGP and will discharge according to the down in mid-operation at the approach • Sun position; and conditions and limitations mandated by to any marine mammal to the Level A • Percent glare. the permit. As required by statute and safety zone, and at the approach of an The following data will be collected regulation, the EPA has made a ESA-listed beluga whale to the Level B for all marine mammal sightings: determination that such discharges will harassment zone for these sources. The • Bearing and distance to the not result in any unreasonable geotechnical vibracoring lasts only one sighting; degradation of the marine environment, or two minutes and shutdowns are • Species identification; • including: likely impossible. Finally, the G&G Behavior at the time of sighting • significant adverse changes in Program will be planned to avoid high (e.g., travel, spy-hop, breach, etc.); • ecosystem diversity, productivity and beluga whale density areas. This would Direction and speed relative to stability of the biological community be achieved by conducting surveys at vessel; • within the area of discharge and the Marine Terminal and the southern Reaction to activities—changes in surrounding biological communities, end of the pipeline survey area when behavior (e.g., none, avoidance, • threat to human health through beluga whales are farther north, feeding approach, paralleling, etc.); direct exposure to pollutants or through • Group size; near the Susitna Delta, and completing • consumption of exposed aquatic activities in the northern portion of the Orientation when sighted (e.g., organisms, or pipeline survey area when the Cook toward, away, parallel, etc.); • loss of aesthetic, recreational, • Closest point of approach; Inlet beluga whales have begun to • scientific or economic values which is disperse from the Susitna Delta and Sighting cue (e.g., animal, splash, unreasonable in relation to the benefit other summer concentration areas. birds, etc.); derived from the discharge. • Physical description of features that Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation were observed or determined not to be Mitigation Monitoring present in the case of unknown or In order to issue an incidental take EMALL will hire qualified and unidentified animals; • authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) NMFS-approved PSOs. These PSOs will Time of sighting; • of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the be stationed aboard the geophysical Location, speed, and activity of the permissible methods of taking pursuant survey source or support vessels during source and mitigation vessels, sea state, to such activity, and other means of sub-bottom profiling, air gun, and ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and effecting the least practicable adverse vibracoring operations. A single senior positions of other vessel(s) in the impact on such species or stock and its PSO will be assigned to oversee all vicinity, and • habitat, paying particular attention to Marine Mammal Mitigation and Mitigation measure taken—if any. rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of Monitoring Program mandates and All observations and shut downs will similar significance, and on the function as the on-site person-in- be recorded in a standardized format availability of such species or stock for chargeimplementing the 4MP. and data entered into a custom database taking for certain subsistence uses Generally, two PSOs will work on a using a notebook computer. Accuracy of (where relevant). rotational basis during daylight hours all data will be verified daily by the PIC To mitigate potential acoustical with shifts of 4 to 6 hours, and one PSO or designated PSO by a manual impacts to local marine mammals, on duty on each source vessel at all verification. These procedures will Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will times. Work days for an individual PSO reduce errors, allow the preparation of operate aboard the vessels from which will not exceed 12 hours in duration. short-term data summaries, and the chirper, boomer, airgun, and Sufficient numbers of PSOs will be facilitate transfer of the data to vibracorer will be deployed. The PSOs available and provided to meet statistical, graphical, or other programs will implement the mitigation measures requirements. for further processing and archiving. described in the Marine Mammal Roles and responsibilities of all PSOs PSOs will conduct monitoring during Monitoring and Mitigation Plan include the following: daylight periods (weather permitting) (Appendix A of the application). These • Accurately observe and record during G&G activities, and during most mitigations include: (1) Establishing sensitive marine mammal species; daylight periods when G&G activities safety zones to ensure marine mammals • Follow monitoring and data are temporarily suspended. are not injured by sound pressure levels collection procedures; and exceeding Level A injury thresholds; (2) • Ensure mitigation measures are Shutdown Procedures shutting down the airgun when required followed. If any marine mammal is seen to avoid harassment of beluga whales PSOs will be stationed at the best approaching the Level A injury zone for approaching the 160-dB disturbance available vantage point on the source the air gun, chirp, or boomer, these zone; and (3) timing survey activity to vessels. PSOs will scan systematically sources will be shut down. If ESA-listed avoid concentrations of beluga whales with the unaided eye and 7x50 reticle marine mammals (e.g., beluga whales) on a seasonal basis. binoculars. As necessary, new PSOs will are observed approaching the Level B

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 51010 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

harassment zone for the air gun, chirp, until the animals are no longer present wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may or boomer, these sources will be shut within the 160-dB disturbance zone. contribute to this goal). down. The PSOs will ensure that the Whenever Cook Inlet beluga whales or • A reduction in the numbers of harassment zone is clear of marine groups of five or more killer whales marine mammals (total number or mammal activity before vibracoring will and/or harbor porpoises are detected number at biologically important time occur. Given that vibracoring lasts only approaching or within the 160-dB or location) exposed to airgun about a minute or two, shutdown disturbance zone, the boomer, chirp, operations that we expect to result in actions are not practicable. and airgun may be powered down the take of marine mammals (this goal Resuming Airgun Operations After a before the animal is within the 160-dB may contribute to 1, above, or to Shutdown disturbance zone, as an alternative to a reducing harassment takes only). complete shutdown. If the PSO • A reduction in the number of times A full ramp-up after a shutdown will determines a power down is not (total number or number at biologically not begin until there has been a sufficient, the sound source(s) shall be important time or location) individuals minimum of 30 minutes of observation shut-down until the animals are no would be exposed to airgun operations of the applicable exclusion zone by longer present within the 160-dB zone. that we expect to result in the take of PSOs to assure that no marine mammals marine mammals (this goal may Mitigation Exclusion Zones are present. The entire exclusion zone contribute to 1, above, or to reducing must be visible during the 30-minute NMFS requires that EMALL will not harassment takes only). lead-in to a full ramp up. If the entire operate the chirp, boomer, vibracore, or • A reduction in the intensity of exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp- airgun within 10 miles (16 km) of the exposures (either total number or up from a cold start cannot begin. If a mean lower low water (MLLW) line of number at biologically important time marine mammal(s) is sighted within the the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the or location) to airgun operations that we injury exclusion zone during the 30- Little Susitna River) between April 15 expect to result in the take of marine minute watch prior to ramp-up, ramp- and October 15. The purpose of this mammals (this goal may contribute to a, up will be delayed until the marine mitigation measure is to protect beluga above, or to reducing the severity of mammal(s) is sighted outside of the whales in the designated critical habitat harassment takes only). zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for in this area that is important for beluga • Avoidance or minimization of at least 15–30 minutes: 15 minutes for whale feeding and calving during the adverse effects to marine mammal small odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g. spring and fall months. The range of the habitat, paying special attention to the harbor porpoises, harbor seals), or 30 setback required by NMFS was food base, activities that block or limit minutes for large odontocetes (e.g., designated to protect this important passage to or from biologically killer whales and beluga whales). habitat area and also to create an important areas, permanent destruction Speed and Course Alterations effective buffer where sound does not of habitat, or temporary destruction/ encroach on this habitat. This seasonal disturbance of habitat during a If a marine mammal is detected exclusion will be in effect from April outside the Level A injury exclusion biologically important time. 15th to October 15th annually. • For monitoring directly related to zone and, based on its position and the Activities can occur within this area mitigation—an increase in the relative motion, is likely to enter that from October 16th–April 14th. zone, the vessel’s speed and/or direct probability of detecting marine course may, when practical and safe, be Mitigation Conclusions mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the changed to also minimize the effect on NMFS has carefully evaluated the survey program. The marine mitigation. EMALL’s mitigation measures in the Based on the evaluation of EMALL’s mammal activities and movements context of ensuring that we prescribe relative to the sound source and support measures, as well as other measures the means of effecting the least required by NMFS, NMFS has vessels will be closely monitored to practicable impact on the affected ensure that the marine mammal does determined that the mitigation measures marine mammal species and stocks and provide the means of effecting the least not approach within the applicable their habitat. Our evaluation of potential exclusion radius. If the mammal appears practicable impact on marine mammal measures included consideration of the species or stocks and their habitat, likely to enter the exclusion radius, following factors in relation to one further mitigative actions will be taken, paying particular attention to rookeries, another: mating grounds, and areas of similar i.e., either further course alterations or • The manner in which, and the significance. Measures to ensure shut down of the active sound sources degree to which, the successful considered in this Authorization. availability of such species or stock for implementation of the measure is taking for certain subsistence uses are Mitigation Required by NMFS expected to minimize adverse impacts discussed later in this document (see to marine mammals; ‘‘Impact on Availability of Affected Special Procedures for Situations or • The proven or likely efficacy of the Species of Concern Species or Stock for Taking for specific measure to minimize adverse Subsistence Uses’’ section). The following additional protective impacts as planned; and measures for beluga whales and groups • The practicability of the measure Monitoring and Reporting of five or more killer whales and harbor for applicant implementation. Weekly Field Reports porpoises are required. Specifically, a Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 160-dB vessel monitoring zone would by NMFS should be able to accomplish, Weekly reports will be submitted to be established and monitored in Cook have a reasonable likelihood of NMFS no later than the close of Inlet during all seismic surveys. If a accomplishing (based on current business (Alaska Time) each Thursday beluga whale or groups of five or more science), or contribute to the during the weeks when in-water G&G killer whales and/or harbor porpoises accomplishment of one or more of the activities take place. The reports will are visually sighted approaching or general goals listed here: cover information collected from within the 160-dB disturbance zone, • Avoidance or minimization of Wednesday of the previous week survey activity would not commence injury or death of marine mammals through Tuesday of the current week.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51011

The field reports will summarize 90-Day Technical Report • Description of the incident; species detected, in-water activity A report will be submitted to NMFS • Status of all sound source use in the occurring at the time of the sighting, within 90 days after the end of the 24 hours preceding the incident; behavioral reactions to in-water project or at least 60 days before the • activities, and the number of marine Water depth; request for another IHA for the next • mammals exposed to harassment level open water season to enable NMFS to Environmental conditions (e.g., noise. incorporate observation data into the wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility); Monthly Field Reports next Authorization. The report will summarize all activities and monitoring • Description of all marine mammal Monthly reports will be submitted to results (i.e., vessel-based visual observations in the 24 hours preceding NMFS for all months during which in- monitoring) conducted during in-water the incident; water G&G activities take place. The G&G surveys. The Technical Report will • Species identification or reports will be submitted to NMFS no include the following: • description of the animal(s) involved; later than five business days after the Summaries of monitoring effort • Fate of the animal(s); and end of the month. The monthly report (e.g., total hours, total distances, and will contain and summarize the marine mammal distribution through • Photographs or video footage of the following information: the study period, accounting for sea animal(s) (if equipment is available). state and other factors affecting • Activities would not resume until Dates, times, locations, heading, visibility and detectability of marine NMFS is able to review the speed, weather, sea conditions mammals). (including Beaufort Sea state and wind • Analyses of the effects of various circumstances of the event. EMALL force), and associated activities during factors influencing detectability of would work with NMFS to minimize the G&G Program and marine mammal marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number reoccurrence of such an event in the sightings. of observers, and fog/glare). future. The G&G Program would not • • Species composition, occurrence, resume activities until formally notified Species, number, location, distance by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. from the vessel, and behavior of any and distribution of marine mammal sighted marine mammals, as well as sightings, including date, water depth, In the event that the G&G Program associated G&G activity (number of shut numbers, age/size/gender categories (if discovers an injured or dead marine downs), observed throughout all determinable), group sizes, and ice mammal, and the lead PSO determines monitoring activities. cover. that the cause of the injury or death is • Analyses of the effects of survey • unknown and the death is relatively An estimate of the number (by operations. recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state species) of: (i) Pinnipeds that have been • Sighting rates of marine mammals of decomposition as described in the exposed to the authorized geophysical during periods with and without G&G next paragraph), the Applicant would or geotechnical activity (based on visual survey activities (and other variables immediately report the incident to the observation) at received levels greater that could affect detectability), such as: Chief of the Permits and Conservation than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) (i) Initial sighting distances versus Division, Office of Protected Resources, and/or 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a survey activity state; (ii) closest point of NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding discussion of any specific behaviors approach versus survey activity state; Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska those individuals exhibited; and (ii) (iii) observed behaviors and types of Regional Stranding Coordinators. The cetaceans that have been exposed to the movements versus survey activity state; report would include the same geophysical activity (based on visual (iv) numbers of sightings/individuals information identified in the paragraph observation) at received levels greater seen versus survey activity state; (v) above. Activities would be able to than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) distribution around the source vessels continue while NMFS reviews the and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a versus survey activity state; and (vi) circumstances of the incident. NMFS discussion of any specific behaviors estimates of Level B harassment based would work with the Applicant to those individuals exhibited. on presence in the 120 or 160 dB determine if modifications in the • An estimate of the number (by harassment zone. activities are appropriate. species) of pinnipeds and cetaceans that Notification of Injured or Dead Marine In the event that the G&G Program have been exposed to the geotechnical Mammals discovers an injured or dead marine activity (based on visual observation) at In the unanticipated event that the mammal, and the lead PSO determines received levels greater than or equal to that the injury or death is not associated 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a discussion specified activity leads to an injury of a marine mammal (Level A harassment) with or related to the activities of any specific behaviors those authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously individuals exhibited. or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), wounded animal, carcass with moderate • A description of the EMALL would immediately cease the to advanced decomposition, or implementation and effectiveness of the: specified activities and immediately scavenger damage), EMALL would (i) Terms and conditions of the report the incident to the Chief of the report the incident to the Chief of the Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take Permits and Conservation Division, Permits and Conservation Division, Statement; and (ii) mitigation measures Office of Protected Resources, and the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, of the IHA. For the Biological Opinion, Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline the report shall confirm the at NMFS. The report would include the and/or by email to the Alaska Regional implementation of each Term and following information: Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours Condition, as well as any conservation • Time, date, and location (latitude/ of the discovery. EMALL would provide recommendations, and describe their longitude) of the incident; photographs or video footage (if effectiveness, for minimizing the • Name and type of vessel involved; available) or other documentation of the adverse effects of the action on ESA- • Vessel’s speed during and leading stranded animal sighting to NMFS and listed marine mammals. up to the incident; the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 51012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

Estimated Take by Incidental mammal or marine mammal stock in the some marine mammals. NMFS believes Harassment wild by causing disruption of behavioral that take from the operation of the patterns, including, but not limited to, vibracore is unlikely but possible and is Except with respect to certain migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, issuing take at the request of the activities not pertinent here, the MMPA feeding, or sheltering [Level B applicant. Thus, NMFS proposes to defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of harassment]. authorize take by Level B harassment pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased resulting from the operation of the has the potential to injure a marine underwater sound) generated during the sound sources for the proposed survey mammal or marine mammal stock in the operation of the airgun or the sub- based upon the current acoustic wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has bottom profiler have the potential to exposure criteria shown in Table 3. the potential to disturb a marine result in the behavioral disturbance of

TABLE 3—NMFS’ CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Criterion Criterion definition Threshold

Level A Harassment (Injury) ...... Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) (Any level 180 dB re 1 microPa-m (cetaceans)/190 dB re above that which is known to cause TTS). 1 microPa-m (pinnipeds) root mean square (rms) Level B Harassment ...... Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) Be- 160 dB re 1 microPa-m (rms) 120 dB re 1 havioral Disruption (for continuous noises). microPa-m (rms)

NMFS’ practice is to apply the 120 or each species by the daily ensonified Ensonified Area 160 dB re: 1 mPa received level area, and then multiplying that figure by The ZOI is the area ensonified by a threshold (whichever is appropriate) for the number of days each sound source particular sound source greater than underwater impulse sound levels to is estimated to be in use. The chirp and threshold levels (120 dB for continuous determine whether take by Level B boomer activities were combined into and 160 dB for impulsive). The radius harassment occurs. one calculation because they will be of the ZOI for a particular equipment All four types of survey equipment operating concurrently, using the daily was determined by applying the source addressed in the application will be ensonified area of the boomer, as it is a sound pressure levels described in operated from the geophysical source slightly larger isopleth. The exposure Table 6 of the application to Collins et vessels that will either be moving estimates for each activity were then al.’s (2007) attenuation model of 18.4 steadily across the ocean surface summed to provide total exposures for Log(r)¥0.00188 derived from Cook (chirper, boomer, airgun), or from the duration of the project. The Inlet. For those equipment generating station to station (vibracoring). The exposure estimates for the activity are loud underwater sound within the numbers of marine mammals that might detailed below. Although NMFS audible hearing range of marine be exposed to sound pressure levels believes that take of marine mammals mammals (<200 kHz), the distance to exceeding NMFS Level B harassment from vibracore is extremely unlikely, it threshold ranges between 184 m (604 ft) threshold levels due to G&G surveys, has been included in this authorization and 2.54 km (1.58 mi), with ZOIs without mitigation, were determined by out of an abundance of caution and at ranging between 0.106 and 20.26 km2 multiplying the average raw density for the request of the applicant. (0.041–7.82 mi2) (Table 4).

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF DISTANCES TO THE NMFS THRESHOLDS AND ASSOCIATED ZOIS

Distance to Distance to 120 dB 160 dB 120 dB 160 dB ZOI Survey equipment isopleth 1 isopleth 1 ZOI km2 km2 m km (mi2) (mi2) (ft) (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 Harbor Porpoise, Killer Whale, Harbor et al. 2012) and compiled by Apache, Seal Inc. (Apache IHA application 2014). To Density estimates were derived for estimate the average raw densities of harbor porpoises, killer whales, and Density estimates were calculated for marine mammals, the total number of harbor seals from NMFS 2002–2012 all marine mammals (except beluga animals for each species observed over Cook Inlet survey data as described whales) by using aerial survey data the 11-year survey period was divided below in Section 6.1.2.1 and shown in collected by NMFS in Cook Inlet by the total area of 65,889 km2 (25,540 Table 8. The beluga whale exposure between 2002 and 2012 (Rugh et al. mi2) surveyed over the 11 years. The estimates were calculated using density 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b, aerial survey marine mammal sightings, estimates from Goetz et al. (2012) as 2005c, 2006, 2007; Shelden et al. 2008, survey effort (area), and derived average described in Section 6.1.2.2. 2009, 2010; Hobbs et al. 2011, Shelden raw densities are provided in Table 5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51013

TABLE 5—RAW DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR COOK INLET MARINE MAMMALS BASED ON NMFS AERIAL SURVEYS

Mean raw density Number of NMFS survey 2 animals/km 2 Species animals area km (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 the most comprehensive available for beluga whales during the summer corrected for animals missed during the Cook Inlet harbor seals and therefore months. To develop a density estimate aerial surveys as no accurate correction constitute the best available science. associated with planned action areas factors are currently available for these (i.e., Marine Terminal and pipeline Beluga Whale species; however, observer error may be survey areas), the ensonified area limited as the NMFS surveyors often Goetz et al. (2012) modeled aerial associated with each activity was circled marine mammal groups to get an survey data collected by the NMFS overlain a map of the 1-km density cells, accurate count of group size. The harbor between 1993 and 2008 and developed the cells falling within each ensonified seal densities are probably biased specific beluga summer densities for area were quantified, and an average upwards given that a large number of each 1-km2 cell of Cook Inlet. The cell density was calculated. The the animals recorded were of large results provide a more precise estimate summary of the density results is found groups hauled out at river mouths, and of beluga density at a given location in Table 9 in the application. The do not represent the distribution in the than simply multiplying all aerial associated ensonified areas and beluga waters where the G&G activity will observations by the total survey effort density contours relative to the action actually occur. However, these data are given the clumped distribution of 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 Number of cells Mean density Density range (animals/km2) (animals/km2)

Marine Terminal Survey Area ...... 386 0.000166 0.000021–0.001512 Pipeline Survey Area ...... 571 0.011552 0.000275–0.156718

Activity Duration intermittently over approximately 14 number of instances of take, it is likely The Cook Inlet 2015 G&G Program is days. The applicant provided an an overestimate of the number of expected to require approximately 12 estimate of 50 miles per day that the individual marine mammals taken weeks (84 days) to complete. During survey vessel could travel. because it assumes that entirely new approximately 63 of these days, the Exposure Calculations individuals are taken on subsequent chirp and boomer sub-bottom profiler days and that no animals are taken more will produce the loudest sound levels. The numbers of marine mammals that than once. The chirp and boomer Airgun use will occur during might be exposed to sound pressure activities were combined to calculate approximately 7 days and will occur levels exceeding NMFS Level B exposure from days of activities in the only near the proposed Marine harassment threshold levels due to G&G Upper Cook Inlet area and the Lower Terminal. The airgun activity will occur surveys, without mitigation, were Cook Inlet area because they will be during the summer when beluga whale determined by multiplying the average operating concurrently. The exposure use of Cook Inlet is primarily raw density for each species by the daily estimates for each activity were then concentrated near the Susitna Delta, ensonified area, then multiplying by the summed to provide total exposures for approximately 65 km (40 mi) north of number of days each sound source is the duration of the project. The the airgun survey area. Vibracoring, estimated to be in use. While this exposure estimates for the activity are with its large ZOI, will occur method produces a good estimate of the detailed below.

TABLE 7—EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR ACTIVITY

Boomer— Boomer— Vibracore— Vibracore— Species Density Upper Lower Airgun Upper 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 other factors that contribute to an that many of these technologies will be what was mentioned above, there are overestimate of exposures,, e.g., the fact operating simultaneously, and not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 51014 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

exposing animals in separate instances 180 dB/190 dB isopleths are incredibly these takes can be avoided. The only for the duration of the survey period. small, ranging from 0 to 26 meters. The technology that would not shutdown is Additionally, the beamwidth and tilt number of exposures, without the vibracore, which has a distance to angle of the sub-bottom profiler are not accounting for mitigation or likely Level A isopleth (180 dB) of 3 meters. factored into the characterization of the avoidance of louder sounds, is small for Therefore, authorization of Level A take sound field, making it conservative and these zones, and with mitigation and the is not necessary. large, creating additional overestimates likelihood of detecting marine mammals NMFS will authorize the following in take estimation. within this small area combined with The possibility of Level A exposure takes by Level B harassment: the likelihood of avoidance, it is likely was analyzed, however the distances to

TABLE 8—AUTHORIZATIONS

Exposure Take Percent of stock or Species estimate authorized 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 • The number, nature, and intensity, proposed activity, the low source levels and duration of Level B harassment; and for many of the technologies proposed Negligible Impact • The context in which the takes to be used, as well as the required Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact occur (e.g., impacts to areas of mitigation. The technologies do not resulting from the specified activity that significance, impacts to local operate continuously over a 24-hour cannot be reasonably expected to, and is populations, and cumulative impacts period. Rather, airguns are operational not reasonably likely to, adversely affect when taking into account successive/ for a few hours at a time for 7 days, with the species or stock through effects on contemporaneous actions when added the sub-bottom profiler chirp and annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ to baseline data); boomer operating for 63 days, and the (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely • The status of stock or species of vibracore operating over 14 days. adverse effects on annual rates of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not The addition of five vessels, and noise recruitment or survival (i.e., population depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, due to vessel operations associated with level effects) forms the basis of a impact relative to the size of the the survey, would not be outside the negligible impact finding. Thus, an population); present experience of marine mammals estimate of the number of takes, alone, • Impacts on habitat affecting rates of in Cook Inlet, although levels may is not enough information on which to recruitment/survival; and increase locally. Potential impacts to base an impact determination. In • The effectiveness of monitoring and marine mammal habitat were discussed addition to considering estimates of the mitigation measures to reduce the previously in this document (see the number of marine mammals that might number or severity of incidental take. ‘‘Anticipated Effects on Habitat’’ be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral As discussed in the Potential Effects section). Although some disturbance is harassment, NMFS must consider other section, temporary or permanent possible to food sources of marine factors, such as the likely nature of any threshold shift, non-auditory physical or mammals, the impacts are anticipated to responses (their intensity, duration, physiological effects, ship strike, be minor enough as to not affect annual etc.), the context of any responses entanglement are not expected to occur. rates of recruitment or survival of (critical reproductive time or location, Given the required mitigation and marine mammals in the area. Based on migration, etc.), as well as the number related monitoring, no injuries or the size of Cook Inlet where feeding by and nature of estimated Level A mortalities are anticipated to occur to marine mammals occurs versus the harassment takes, the number of any species as a result of EMALL’s localized area of the marine survey estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, proposed survey in Cook Inlet, and none activities, any missed feeding and the status of the species. are authorized. Animals in the area are opportunities in the direct project area To avoid repetition, except where not expected to incur hearing would be minor based on the fact that otherwise identified, the discussion of impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non- other feeding areas exist elsewhere. our analyses applies to all the species auditory physiological effects due to Taking into account the mitigation listed in Table 8, given that the low source levels and the fact that most measures that are planned, effects on anticipated effects of this project on marine mammals would more likely cetaceans are generally expected to be marine mammals are expected to be avoid a loud sound source rather than restricted to avoidance of a limited area relatively similar in nature. Where there swim in such close proximity as to around the survey operation and short- is information about specific impacts to, result in TTS or PTS. The most likely term changes in behavior, falling within or about the size, status, or structure of, effect from the proposed action is the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B any species or stock that would lead to localized, short-term behavioral harassment.’’ Shut-downs are required a different analysis for this activity, disturbance from active acoustic for belugas and groups of killer whales species-specific factors are identified sources. The number of takes that are or harbor porpoises when they approach and analyzed. anticipated and authorized are expected the 160dB disturbance zone, to further In making a negligible impact to be limited to short-term Level B reduce potential impacts to these determination, NMFS considers: behavioral harassment for all stocks for populations. Visual observation by • The number of anticipated injuries, which take is authorized. This is largely trained PSOs is also implemented to serious injuries, or mortalities; due to the short time scale of the reduce the impact of the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51015

activity by informing operators of Given the large number of vessels in will minimize the amount of take to the marine mammals approaching the Cook Inlet and the apparent habituation local harbor porpoise population. This relevant disturbance or injury zones. to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales mitigation as well as the short duration Animals are not expected to and the other marine mammals that may and low source levels of the proposed permanently abandon any area that is occur in the area, vessel activity from activity will reduce the impact to the surveyed, and any behaviors that are the two source vessels, tug and jack-up harbor porpoises found in Cook Inlet. interrupted during the activity are rig and associated vessel noise is not Harbor Seal expected to resume once the activity expected to have effects that could ceases. Only a small portion of marine cause significant or long-term The authorization of take by Level B mammal habitat will be affected at any consequences for individual marine harassment for 1,168 harbor seals time, and other areas within Cook Inlet mammals or their populations, given represents only 5.1% of a stable will be available for necessary biological that vessels will operate for a maximum population. Observations during other functions. of 84 days. anthropogenic activities in Cook Inlet Odontocete (including Cook Inlet In addition, NMFS has seasonally have reported large congregations of beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor restricted survey operations in the area harbor seals hauling out in upper Cook porpoises) reactions to seismic energy known to be important for beluga whale Inlet. However, mitigation measures, pulses are usually assumed to be limited feeding, calving, or nursing. The such as vessel speed, course alteration, to shorter distances from the airgun(s) primary location for these biological life and visual monitoring, and time-area than are those of mysticetes, in part functions occurs in the Susitna Delta restrictions will be implemented to help because odontocete low-frequency region of upper Cook Inlet. NMFS reduce impacts to the animals. hearing is assumed to be less sensitive required EMALL to implement a 16 km Additionally, this activity does not than that of mysticetes. This (10 mi) seasonal exclusion from survey encompass a large number of known information supports the idea that the operations in this region from April 15- harbor seal haulouts, particularly as this numerated takes for odonotocetes are October 15. The highest concentrations activity proposes operations traversing likely on the lower end of severity in the of belugas are typically found in this across the Inlet, as opposed to entirely terms of responses that rise to the level area from early May through September nearshore activities. While some harbor of a take. each year. NMFS has incorporated a 2- seals will likely be exposed, the week buffer on each end of this seasonal required mitigation along with their Beluga Whales use timeframe to account for any smaller aggregations in water than on Cook Inlet beluga whales are listed as anomalies in distribution and marine shore should minimize impacts to the endangered under the ESA. This stock mammal usage. harbor seal population. Additionally, is also considered depleted under the the short duration of the survey, and the MMPA. The estimated annual rate of Killer Whales use of visual observers to inform decline for Cook Inlet beluga whales The authorization of take by Level B shutdowns and ramp up delays should was 0.6 percent between 2002 and 2012. harassment of 5 killer whales represents further reduce the severity of behavioral The authorization of take by Level B only 1.44 percent of the population. reactions to Cook Inlet harbor seals. harassment of 24 Cook Inlet beluga Killer whales are not encountered as Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to whales represents 7.06 percent of the frequently in Cook Inlet as some of the sounds produced by this phase of population. other species in this analysis, however EMALL’s proposed survey is not Belugas in the Canadian Beaufort Sea when sighted they are usually in groups. anticipated to have an effect on annual in summer appear to be fairly The addition of a mitigation measure to rates of recruitment or survival on those responsive to seismic energy, with few shutdown if a group of 5 or more killer species or stocks. being sighted within 10–20 km (6–12 whales is seen approaching the 160 dB Based on the analysis contained mi) of seismic vessels during aerial zone is intended to minimize any herein of the likely effects of the surveys (Miller et al., 2005). However, impact to an aggregation of killer whales specified activity on marine mammals as noted above, Cook Inlet belugas are if encountered. The killer whales in the and their habitat, and taking into more accustomed to anthropogenic survey area are also thought to be consideration the implementation of the sound than beluga whales in the transient killer whales and therefore required monitoring and mitigation Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the results from rely on the habitat in the EMALL survey measures, NMFS finds that the total the Beaufort Sea surveys do not directly area less than other resident species. annual marine mammal take from translate to potential reactions of Cook EMALL’s proposed survey will have a Inlet beluga whales. Also, due to the Harbor Porpoise negligible impact on the affected marine dispersed distribution of beluga whales The authorization of take by Level B mammal species or stocks (see Table 8). in Cook Inlet during winter and the harassment for 20 harbor porpoises Although NMFS believes it is unlikely concentration of beluga whales in upper represents only 0.064 percent of the the operation of the vibracore would Cook Inlet from late April through early population. Harbor porpoises are among result in the take of marine mammals fall, belugas would likely occur in small the most sensitive marine mammal and did not propose to authorize take by numbers in the majority of EMALL’s species with regard to behavioral vibracore in the Federal Register notice proposed survey area during the response and anthropogenic noise. They of the proposed Authorization, we note majority of EMALL’s annual operational are known to exhibit behavioral here that take from vibracoring activities timeframe of August through December. responses to operation of seismic has been included in the Final For the same reason, as well as the airguns, pingers, and other technologies Authorization out of an abundance of mitigation measure that requires at low thresholds. However, they are caution and at the request of the shutting down for belugas seen abundant in Cook Inlet and therefore the applicant. Take by Level B harassment approaching the 160dB disturbance authorized take is unlikely to affect from vibracoring accounts for zone, and the likelihood of avoidance at recruitment or status of the population approximately 25 percent of the take high levels, it is unlikely that animals in any way. In addition, mitigation authorized for the entire survey, ranging would be exposed to received levels measures include shutdowns for groups from 0.9 killer whales to 313 harbor capable of causing injury. of more than 5 harbor porpoises that seals. The vibracoring activity is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 51016 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

proposed to occur at 55 locations across that the numbers of animals likely to be beluga whales over the prior five-year the Inlet from the Forelands, north to taken are small. interval is below 350 whales. Harvest the upper end of Cook Inlet. However, levels for the current 5-year planning Impact on Availability of Affected the actual noise-producing activity will interval (2013–2017) are zero because Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses only occur for only 90 seconds at a time, the average stock abundance for the during which PSOs will be observing for Relevant Subsistence Uses previous five-year period (2008–2012) marine mammals. The limited scope The subsistence harvest of marine was below 350 whales. Based on the and duration of vibracoring makes it mammals transcends the nutritional and average abundance over the 2002–2007 extremely unlikely that take by Level B economic values attributed to the period, no hunt occurred between 2008 harassment would occur during the animal and is an integral part of the and 2012 (NMFS, 2008a). The Cook vibracore portion of the operation. cultural identity of the region’s Alaska Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which Nonetheless, we included the potential Native communities. Inedible parts of managed the Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS, was disbanded by a take from vibracore in our analysis the whale provide Native artisans with unanimous vote of the Tribes’ above, and as we indicated, we found materials for cultural handicrafts, and representatives on June 20, 2012. At this that there would be a negligible impact the hunting itself perpetuates Native time, no harvest is expected in 2015 or, on the affect species or stocks from the traditions by transmitting traditional likely, in 2016. total takes, including any that are skills and knowledge to younger authorized for vibracore. Data on the harvest of other marine generations (NOAA, 2007). mammals in Cook Inlet are lacking. The Cook Inlet beluga whale has Small Numbers Analysis Some data are available on the traditionally been hunted by Alaska subsistence harvest of harbor seals, The requested takes authorized Natives for subsistence purposes. For harbor porpoises, and killer whales in annually represent 7.06 percent of the several decades prior to the 1980s, the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of Alaska in the marine mammal stock Native Village of Tyonek residents were assessments. However, these numbers approximately 340 animals (Allen and the primary subsistence hunters of Cook Angliss, 2014), 1.44 percent of the Gulf are for the Gulf of Alaska including Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering and 1990s, Alaska Natives from villages Sea stock of killer whales (345 of the harvest in Cook Inlet. in the western, northwestern, and North There is a low level of subsistence transients), and 0.064 percent of the Slope regions of Alaska either moved to hunting for harbor seals in Cook Inlet. Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately or visited the south central region and Seal hunting occurs opportunistically 31,046 harbor porpoises. The take participated in the yearly subsistence among Alaska Natives who may be requests presented for harbor seals harvest (Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet represent 5.02 percent of the Cook Inlet/ 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per near the mouths of the Susitna River, Shelikof stock of approximately 22,900 year (range 21–123) were taken in this Beluga River, and Little Susitna. Some animals. These take estimates represent harvest, including those successfully detailed information on the subsistence small numbers relative to the affected taken for food and those struck and lost. harvest of harbor seals is available from species or stock sizes as shown in Table NMFS concluded that this number was past studies conducted by the Alaska 8. high enough to account for the Department of Fish & Game (Wolfe et In addition to the quantitative estimated 14 percent annual decline in al., 2009). In 2008, 33 harbor seals were methods used to estimate take, NMFS the population during this time (Hobbs taken for harvest in the Upper Kenai- also considered qualitative factors that et al., 2008). Actual mortality may have Cook Inlet area. In the same study, further support the ‘‘small numbers’’ been higher, given the difficulty of reports from hunters stated that harbor determination, including: (1) The estimating the number of whales struck seal populations in the area were seasonal distribution and habitat use and lost during the hunts. In 1999, a increasing (28.6%) or remaining stable patterns of Cook Inlet beluga whales, moratorium was enacted (Pub. L. 106– (71.4%). The specific hunting regions which suggest that for much of the time 31) prohibiting the subsistence take of identified were Anchorage, Homer, only a small portion of the population Cook Inlet beluga whales except through Kenai, and Tyonek, and hunting would be accessible to impacts from a cooperative agreement between NMFS generally peaks in March, September, EMALL’s activity, as most animals are and the affected Alaska Native and November (Wolfe et al., 2009). found in the Susitna Delta region of organizations. Since the Cook Inlet Upper Cook Inlet from early May beluga whale harvest was regulated in Potential Impacts on Availability for through September; (2) other cetacean 1999 requiring cooperative agreements, Subsistence Uses species are not common in the survey five beluga whales have been struck and Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires area; (3) the required mitigation harvested. Those beluga whales were NMFS to determine that the taking will requirements, which provide spatio- harvested in 2001 (one animal), 2002 not have an unmitigable adverse effect temporal limitations that avoid impacts (one animal), 2003 (one animal), and on the availability of marine mammal to large numbers of belugas feeding and 2005 (two animals). The Native Village species or stocks for subsistence use. calving in the Susitna Delta; (4) the of Tyonek agreed not to hunt or request NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable adverse required monitoring requirements and a hunt in 2007, when no co- impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact mitigation measures described earlier in management agreement was to be signed resulting from the specified activity: (1) this document for all marine mammal (NMFS, 2008a). That is likely to reduce the availability species that will reduce the amount of On October 15, 2008, NMFS of the species to a level insufficient for takes; and (5) monitoring results from published a final rule that established a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: previous activities that indicated low long-term harvest limits on Cook Inlet (i) Causing the marine mammals to numbers of beluga whale sightings beluga whales that may be taken by abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) within the Level B disturbance Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes Directly displacing subsistence users; or exclusion zone and low levels of Level (73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits (iii) Placing physical barriers between B harassment takes of other marine harvest for a 5-year interval period if the the marine mammals and the mammals. Therefore, NMFS determined average stock abundance of Cook Inlet subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices 51017

be sufficiently mitigated by other Inlet, the number of animals annually not anticipate that the authorized taking measures to increase the availability of harvested is low, and are primarily of affected species or stocks will reduce marine mammals to allow subsistence harbor seals. Much of the harbor seal the availability of the species to a level needs to be met. harvest occurs incidental to other insufficient for a harvest to meet The primary concern is the fishing and hunting activities, and at subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the disturbance of marine mammals through areas outside of the EMALL’s proposed marine mammals to abandon or avoid the introduction of anthropogenic sound survey areas such as the Susitna Delta hunting areas; (2) directly displacing into the marine environment during the or the west side of lower Cook Inlet. subsistence users; or (3) placing proposed survey. Marine mammals Also, EMALL is unlikely to conduct physical barriers between the marine could be behaviorally harassed and activity in the vicinity of any of the river mammals and the subsistence hunters; either become more difficult to hunt or mouths where large numbers of seals and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated temporarily abandon traditional hunting haul out. by other measures to increase the grounds. However, the proposed survey EMALL and NMFS recognize the availability of marine mammals to allow will not have any impacts to beluga importance of ensuring that Alaska harvests as none currently occur in Natives and federally recognized tribes subsistence needs to be met. Based on Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence are informed, engaged, and involved the description of the specified activity, harvests of other marine mammal during the permitting process and will the measures described to minimize species are limited in Cook Inlet. continue to work with the Alaska adverse effects on the availability of Natives and tribes to discuss operations marine mammals for subsistence Plan of Cooperation or Measures To and activities. purposes, and the required mitigation Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts Prior to offshore activities EMALL and monitoring measures, NMFS has The entire upper Cook unit and a was to consult with nearby communities determined that there will not be an portion of the lower Cook unit falls such as Tyonek, Salamatof, and the unmitigable adverse impact on north of 60° N., or within the region Kenaitze Indian Tribe to attend and subsistence uses from EMALL’s NMFS has designated as an Arctic present the program description prior to proposed activities. subsistence use area. EMALL provided operations within those areas. These detailed information in Section 8 of meetings were conducted and no issues Endangered Species Act their application regarding their plan to related to subsistence use of marine There is one marine mammal species cooperate with local subsistence users mammals was raised. listed as endangered under the ESA and stakeholders regarding the potential If a conflict does occur with project with confirmed or possible occurrence effects of their proposed activity. There activities involving subsistence or are several villages in EMALL’s fishing, the project manager will in the project area: The Cook Inlet proposed project area that have immediately contact the affected party beluga whale. In addition, the action traditionally hunted marine mammals, to resolve the conflict. could occur within 10 miles of primarily harbor seals. Tyonek is the designated critical habitat for the Cook Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis only tribal village in upper Cook Inlet Inlet beluga whale. NMFS’s Permits and with a tradition of hunting marine and Determination Conservation Division has initiated mammals, in this case harbor seals and The project will not have any effect consultation with NMFS’ Alaska Region beluga whales. However, for either on beluga whale harvests because no Protected Resources Division under species the annual recorded harvest beluga harvest will take place in 2015. section 7 of the ESA. This consultation since the 1980s has averaged about one Additionally, the proposed seismic concluded on August 13, 2015, when a or fewer of either species (Fall et al. survey area is not an important native Biological Opinion was issued. The 1984, Wolfe et al. 2009, SRBA and HC subsistence site for other subsistence Biological Opinion determined that the 2011), and there is currently a species of marine mammals thus, the issuance of an IHA is not likely to moratorium on subsistence harvest of number harvested is expected to be jeapordize the continued existence of belugas. Further, many of the seals that extremely low. The timing and location the Cook Inlet beluga whales or destroy are harvested are done incidentally to of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet or adversely modify Cook Inlet beluga salmon fishing or moose hunting (Fall et harbor seals may coincide with whale critical habitat. Finally, the al. 1984, Merrill and Orpheim 2013), EMALL’s project, but because this Alaska region issued an Incidental Take often near the mouths of the Susitna subsistence hunt is conducted Statement (ITS) for Cook Inlet beluga Delta rivers (Fall et al. 1984) north of opportunistically and at such a low whales. The ITS contains reasonable EMALL’s proposed seismic survey area. level (NMFS, 2013c), EMALL’s program and prudent measures implemented by Villages in lower Cook Inlet adjacent is not expected to have an impact on the the terms and conditions to minimize to EMALL’s proposed survey area subsistence use of harbor seals. the effect of this take. (Kenai, Salamatof, and Nikiski) have Moreover, the proposed survey would either not traditionally hunted beluga result in only temporary disturbances. National Environmental Policy Act whales, or at least not in recent years, Accordingly, the specified activity and rarely do they harvest sea lions. would not impact the availability of NMFS prepared an EA that includes These villages more commonly harvest these other marine mammal species for an analysis of potential environmental harbor seals, with Kenai reporting an subsistence uses. effects associated with NMFS’ issuance average of about 13 per year between NMFS anticipates that any effects of an IHA to EMALL to take marine 1992 and 2008 (Wolfe et al. 2009). from EMALL’s proposed survey on mammals incidental to conducting a According to Fall et al. (1984), many of marine mammals, especially harbor geophysical and geotechnical survey the seals harvested by hunters from seals and Cook Inlet beluga whales, program in Cook Inlet, Alaska. NMFS these villages were taken on the west which are or have been taken for has finalized the EA and prepared a side of the inlet during hunting subsistence uses, would be short-term, Finding of No Significant Impact for this excursions for moose and black bears. site specific, and limited to action. Therefore, preparation of an Although marine mammals remain an inconsequential changes in behavior Environmental Impact Statement is not important subsistence resource in Cook and mild stress responses. NMFS does necessary.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 51018 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Notices

Authorization geophysical and geotechnical survey in Dated: August 17, 2015. Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided the Donna S. Wieting, As a result of these determinations, previously mentioned mitigation, Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS has issued an IHA to Exxon monitoring, and reporting requirements National Marine Fisheries Service. Mobil Alaska LNG LLC (EMALL) for are incorporated. [FR Doc. 2015–20605 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am] taking marine mammals incidental to a BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\21AUN2.SGM 21AUN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES