[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17209-17224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE60


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Gustavus Ferry Terminal 
Improvements Project

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the 
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) to 
incidentally harass seven species of marine mammals during activities 
related to the implementation of a Ferry Terminal Improvements Project 
in Gustavus, Alaska.

DATES: This authorization is valid from December 15, 2017 through 
December 14, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability

    An electronic copy of ADOT&PF's application and supporting 
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, 
may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please 
call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of

[[Page 17210]]

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed 
authorization is provided to the public for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to 
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review 
of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period 
on any proposed authorization for the incidental harassment of marine 
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must 
either issue or deny the authorization.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as ``any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).''

Summary of Request

    On July 31, 2015, NMFS received an application from the ADOT&PF for 
the taking of marine mammals incidental to reconstructing the existing 
ferry terminal at Gustavus, Alaska, referred to as the Gustavus Ferry 
Terminal. On April 15, 2016, NMFS received a revised application. NMFS 
determined that the application was adequate and complete on April 20, 
2016. ADOT&PF proposed to conduct in-water work that may incidentally 
harass marine mammals (i.e., pile driving and removal). This IHA would 
be valid from December 15, 2017 through December 14, 2018.
    Proposed activities included as part of the Gustavus Ferry Terminal 
Improvements Project with potential to affect marine mammals include 
vibratory pile driving and pile removal, as well as impact pile 
driving.
    Species with the expected potential to be present during the 
project timeframe include harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Steller sea 
lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's 
porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), killer whale (Orcinus orca), humpback 
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and minke whale (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata).

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    We provided a description of the proposed action in our Federal 
Register notice announcing the proposed authorization (81 FR 40852; 
June 23, 2016). Please refer to that document; we provide only summary 
information here.
    The ADOT&PF is modernizing its Gustavus Ferry Terminal in Gustavus, 
Alaska. The purpose of the project is to improve the vehicle transfer 
span and dock such that damage during heavy storms is prevented, and to 
improve the safety of vehicle and pedestrian transfer operations. 
ADOT&PF requested an IHA for work that includes removal of the existing 
steel bridge float and restraint structure and replacing it with two 
steel/concrete bridge lift towers capable of elevating the relocated 
steel transfer bridge above the water when not in use. Each tower would 
be supported by four 30-inch steel piles.

Dates and Duration

    Pile installation and extraction associated with the Gustavus Ferry 
Terminal project will begin no sooner than December 15, 2017 and will 
be completed no later than December 14, 2018 (one year following IHA 
issuance). Project activities are proposed to occur during two time-
periods. The first period will occur in spring of 2018, with pile 
driving/removal and in-water work occurring during the period of March 
1, 2018 through May 31, 2018. The second period is scheduled for fall 
of 2018, with pile driving/removal and in-water work occurring during 
the period of September 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018.
    Pile driving and removal is estimated to occur for a total of about 
171 hours over the course of 16 to 50 days. For the purposes of this 
analysis, 50 days of driving will be assumed. Impact pile driving will 
take place for up to 57 hours for approximately three hours per day 
while vibratory driving will require up to 114 hours and require up to 
6 hours per day. Fifty-seven piles will be installed. Sixteen of these 
piles will be temporary and will be removed. The pile driving schedule 
is shown in Table 1.

                                                             Table 1--Pile Driving Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Project components
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Description                                                                                                          Piles
                                    Dock           Bridge      Lift  towers  Access  float    Log  float   Pile  removal    installed/    Installation/
                                  extension       abutment                                                                 total piles   removal per day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Piles...................  34............  6............  8............  6............  3............  16...........  57/73........  3 piles/day
                                                                                                                                          (maximum).
Pile Size (Diameter).........  24-inch.......  24-inch......  30-inch......  30-inch......  12.75-inch...  12.75-inch...
Total Strikes (Impact).......  20,400........  3,600........  4,800........  3,600........  1,800........  0............  34,200.......  1,800 blows/
                                                                                                                                          day.
Total Impact Time............  34 hrs........  6 hrs........  8 hrs........  6 hrs........  3 hrs........  0............  57 hrs.......  3 hrs/day.
Total Vibratory Time.........  54 hrs........  9 hrs........  13 hrs.......  9 hrs........  5 hrs........  24 hrs.......  114 hrs......  6 hrs/day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific Geographic Region

    The proposed activities will occur at the Gustavus Ferry Terminal 
located in Gustavus, Alaska on the Icy Passage water body in Southeast 
Alaska (See Figures 1 and 2 in the application).

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to ADOT&PF was 
published in

[[Page 17211]]

the Federal Register on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40852). That notice 
described, in detail, ADOT&PF's activity, the marine mammal species 
that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on 
marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received 
only one set of comments, from the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission); the Commission's recommendations and our responses are 
provided here, and the comments have been posted online at: 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. Please see 
the Commission's letter for background and rationale regarding the 
recommendations, which are listed below.
    Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS use a sound source 
level higher than the 154.3 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m that was recorded at 
Kake Harbor by ADOT&PF for deriving disturbance zone isopleths during 
vibratory driving of 30-inch steel piles at Gustavus. The Commission 
was concerned that this value was considerably lower than other sound 
source levels (SSLs) associated with driving piles of similar type and 
size.
    Response: ADOT&PF implemented sound source verification (SSV) 
measurements at Kake Harbor, Alaska and proposed to use this 
information as a proxy SSL for the Gustavus Ferry Terminal project. The 
results determined a SSL of 154.3 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 10 m. This value 
was further modified to 157.7 dB re 1 [mu]Pa after the original 
findings were re-analyzed to include additional data from a single 
restraint pile that had not been included in the initial results. NMFS 
agrees that this SSL is lower than others that have been documented in 
datasets generated from locations outside Alaska. However, ADOT&PF will 
be using the same types of vibratory and impact hammers at Gustavus as 
were used at Kake. Additionally, while the substrate at Gustavus is not 
identical to those at Kake, both are similarly composed of relatively 
fine-grained sediments. The project at Kake was also using pile types 
and sizes that are comparable to those planned for use at Gustavus. 
Finally, NMFS will require ADOT&PF to conduct SSV testing as a 
monitoring requirement. If the recorded SSLs at Gustavus are greater 
than those measured at Kake, ADOT&PF will increase the isopleths as 
appropriate.
    Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS ensure that the 
estimated numbers of takes are adequate if the amended Level B 
harassment zone calculated from a source greater than 157.7 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa extends into Icy Strait.
    Response: NMFS used a SSL of 157.7 dB re 1 [mu]Pa to calculate the 
Level B harassment isopleth, which does not extend into Icy Strait. If 
the Level B harassment zone needs to be increased after ADOT&PF 
conducts on-site SSV verification testing, NMFS will re-evaluate 
numbers of estimated takes as appropriate.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS compile available 
in-situ pile driving and removal data into a central database. This 
would enable analysts to crosscheck data in situations like the one 
discussed herein, as well as in situations when applicants are having 
difficulty determining proxy source levels.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission that a database would be 
of value and has begun compiling underwater sound-related information.
    Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS require every 
applicant to specify the sediment composition, water depth (in terms of 
hydrophone placement and bathymetry), duration over which the pressure 
was averaged for sound pressure level root mean square (SPLrms) 
metrics, and median values in all future hydroacoustic monitoring 
reports.
    Response: NMFS will require every applicant to specify the sediment 
composition and water depth (in terms of hydrophone placement and 
bathymetry) for SSV. In addition, NMFS will require the applicants to 
provide median and averaged values of sound source measurements. 
However, duration over which the pressure was averaged for SPLrms 
values can vary for impact pile driving since NMFS requires that SPLrms 
be computed using a 90 percent energy window. Therefore, NMFS will only 
require the applicant to provide the duration from vibratory pile 
driving measurements.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS ensure consistency 
regarding integration of timeframes used for SPLrms measurements (e.g., 
1-second averages, maximum over 10 seconds, or maximum over 30 seconds) 
in all future hydroacoustic monitoring reports.
    Response: In 2012, NMFS worked with scientists from the University 
of Washington and stakeholders from the Washington State Department of 
Transportation to develop a set of guidance for data collection methods 
to characterize impact and vibratory pile driving source levels 
relevant to marine mammals. For vibratory pile driving, the guidance 
recommends taking 10 second averages across the whole event and 
averaging all the 10 second periods to calculate the SPLrms value. For 
impact pile driving, the guidance recommends characterizing overall 
dBrms levels by integrating sound for each waveform across 90% of the 
acoustic energy in each wave (using the 5-95 percentiles to establish 
the 90% criterion) and averaging across all waves in the pile-driving 
event. NMFS will require these methods for vibratory and impact pile 
driving sound source measurements in the future.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    There are seven marine mammal species known to occur in the 
vicinity of the project area. Two of the species are known to occur 
near the Gustavus Ferry terminal; the harbor seal and Steller sea lion. 
The remaining five species may occur in Icy Passage but less frequently 
and farther from the ferry terminal: Harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, 
killer whale, humpback whale, and minke whale.
    We reviewed ADOT&PF's detailed species descriptions, including life 
history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader 
to Section 3 of ADOT&PF's application as well as our notice of proposed 
IHA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 40852; June 23, 2016).
    Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts that provide information 
regarding the biology and behavior of the marine resources that occur 
in proximity to the project area.
    Table 2 lists marine mammal stocks that could occur near the 
project area that may be subject to harassment and summarizes key 
information regarding stock status and abundance. Note that the listed 
status of the humpback whale was updated in 2016 after NMFS conducted a 
global status review (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016). The humpback 
whale was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Conservation Act (ESCA) on December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319). Congress 
replaced the ESCA with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, and 
humpback whales continued to be listed as endangered. Under the revised 
listing status, NMFS identified 14 distinct population segments (DPS). 
Of these 14 DPSs, four remain listed as endangered, one is listed as 
threatened, and the remaining nine were identified as not warranted for 
listing. For humpback whales found in southeast Alaska, NMFS 
anticipates that the vast

[[Page 17212]]

majority (approximately 94 percent) would be from the non-listed Hawaii 
DPS. A small proportion (approximately 6 percent) of whales occurring 
in southeast Alaska are expected to be of the Mexico DPS, which remains 
listed as threatened.
    Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks' 
status and abundance.

                                        Table 2--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in Region of Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Stock abundance                                                   Frequency of  occurrence
            Common name                Scientific name          estimate \1\            ESA status            MMPA status                  \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.......................  Phoca vitulina.......  7,210 (Glacier Bay/    Not listed...........  Not Strategic, non-    Likely.
                                                            Icy Strait).                                  depleted.
Steller sea lion..................  Eumetopias jubatus...  50,983 (western        Endangered (western    Strategic, depleted    Likely.
                                                            distinct population    Distinct Population    (western DPS)/Not
                                                            segment in Alaska)/    Segment).              Strategic, non-
                                                            71,562 (eastern                               depleted (eastern
                                                            stock).                                       DPS).
Dall's porpoise...................  Phocoenoides dalli...  83,400...............  Not listed...........  Not Strategic, non-    Infrequent.
                                                                                                          depleted.
Harbor porpoise...................  Phocoena phocoena....  11,146 (Southeast      Not listed...........  Strategic, non-        Likely.
                                                            Alaska).                                      depleted.
Humpback whale (Central North       Megaptera              10,103...............  Threatened (Mexico     Strategic, depleted    Infrequent.
 Pacific Stock).                     novaeangliae.                                 DPS)/Not listed        (Mexico DPS)/Not
                                                                                   (Hawaii DPS).          Strategic, non-
                                                                                                          depleted (Hawaii
                                                                                                          DPS).
Killer whale......................  Orcinus orca.........  261 (Northern          Not listed...........  Not strategic, non-    Infrequent.
                                                            resident)/587 (Gulf                           depleted (all
                                                            of Alaska transient)/                         stocks).
                                                            243 (West coast
                                                            transient).
Minke whale.......................  Balaenoptera           Unknown..............  Not listed...........  Not Strategic/non-     Infrequent.
                                     acutorostrata.                                                       depleted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.
\2\ Infrequent: Confirmed, but irregular sightings. Likely: Confirmed and regular sightings of the species in the area year-round.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    The effects of underwater noise from pile driving activities for 
the Ferry Terminal Improvements Project have the potential to result in 
harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 40852, June 23, 
2016) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on 
marine mammals. Therefore, that information is not repeated here; 
please refer to the Federal Register notice for that information. No 
instances of serious injury or mortality are expected as a result of 
the pile driving activities.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The main impact associated with the ADOT&PF project would be 
temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on 
marine mammals. The project would not result in permanent impacts to 
habitats used directly by marine mammals but may have potential short-
term impacts to food sources such as forage fish, and minor impacts to 
the immediate substrate resulting in a temporary, localized increase in 
turbidity. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 40852, June 23, 
2016), therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to 
that Federal Register notice for that information.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, ``and other means of effecting the least practicable impact 
on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention 
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking'' for certain 
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental 
take authorizations to include information about the availability and 
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and 
manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, 
their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). For the proposed project, 
ADOT&PF worked with NMFS to develop the following mitigation measures 
to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project 
vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to 
minimize sound levels from the activities, and to shut down operations 
and monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence 
corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds.
    In addition to the measures described later in this section, 
ADOT&PF will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
    (a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, 
and marine mammal monitoring team, prior to the start of all pile 
driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to 
explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal 
monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;
    (b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or 
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine 
mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall 
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and 
safe working conditions. This type of work could include the following 
activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile location; or (2) 
positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing 
the pile); and
    (c) To limit the amount of waterborne noise, a vibratory hammer 
will be used for initial driving, followed by an impact hammer to proof 
the pile to required load-bearing capacity.
    Establishment of Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, 
ADOT&PF will establish a shutdown zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone 
is generally to define an area within which shutdown of activity would 
occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 
entering the defined area). In this case, shutdown zones are intended 
to contain areas in which SPLs equal or exceed acoustic injury 
criteria, based on NMFS' new acoustic technical guidance published in 
the Federal Register on August 4, 2016 (81 FR 51693). The shutdown 
zones vary for specific species. For impact driving, the shutdown zone 
extends to 550 m for humpback whale and minke whale; for harbor seal, 
harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise, the zone

[[Page 17213]]

extends to 100 m; and for killer whale and Steller sea lion, the zone 
is set at 25 m. Note that for harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall's 
porpoise, the injury zones extend beyond the designated shutdown zones, 
resulting in potential for some Level A take for these species. This 
approach will allow operations to continue when animals from these 
three species are sighted beyond the the 100 m shutdown zone. If the 
shutdown zone extended out to the full PTS isopleth (282.3 m for harbor 
seal; 628 m for harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise) for these species, 
it is likely that impact driving operations would have to be shut down 
continuously due to the relatively high abundance of animals in the 
project area. Permitting Level A take will allow the project to be 
completed in a relatively expedient manner while impacting a limited 
number of animals. For vibratory driving, the shutdown zone is 20 m for 
harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, humpback whale and minke whale. The 
shutdown zone for killer whale, harbor seal and Steller sea lion is 10 
m during vibratory driving. The derivation of these shutdown isopleths 
is described in the Estimated Take section.
    Establishment of Level A Take Zone--ADOT&PF will establish Level A 
take zones which are areas beyond the shutdown zones where animals may 
be exposed to sound levels that could result in permanent threshold 
shift (PTS).
    Establishment of Disturbance Zones--ADOT&PF will establish Level B 
disturbance zones or zones of influence (ZOI) which, according to 
current NMFS guidance, are areas where SPLs equal or exceed 160 dB rms 
for impact driving and 120 dB rms for vibratory driving. Disturbance 
zones provide utility for monitoring by establishing monitoring 
protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of 
disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the 
presence of marine mammals in the project area but outside the shutdown 
zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity.
    Temporal and Seasonal Restrictions--The following restrictions will 
apply to all pile driving activities:
    (a) Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual 
monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted;
    (b) All in-water construction will be limited to the periods 
between March 1 and May 31, 2018, and September 1 and November 30, 
2018; and
    (c) Starting March 1, 2018 through May 31, 2018 and September 1, 
2018, through September 30, 2018, all pile driving operations will end 
at 4 p.m. as charter fishing vessels return to the dock. Steller sea 
lions are attracted and habituated to the project area to forage on 
scraps from the charter boats that are returning to the dock and 
cleaning fish in the late afternoon (pers. Comm. Chris Gabriele (Hart 
Crowser 2015)). Late afternoon is likely to be the period of the day 
when the highest numbers of sea lions are present in the action area, 
so stopping operations will limit exposure to concentrated higher 
numbers of Steller sea lions. Because different numbers of fishing 
charter vessels may be operating each day and returning at various 
times, pile driving will stop if 5 or more Steller sea lions are 
observed following charter fishing vessels to the dock prior to 4 p.m.
    Soft Start--The use of a soft-start procedure is believed to 
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning 
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the 
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors 
will be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer 
at 40 percent energy, each strike followed by no less than a 30-second 
waiting period. This procedure will be conducted a total of three times 
before impact pile driving begins. Soft start will also be conducted 
whenever impact driving commences after 30 or more minutes since the 
last impact pile driving action.
    Sound Attenuation Devices--During impact pile driving, contractors 
will be required to use pile caps. Pile caps reduce the sound generated 
by the pile, although the level of reduction can vary.

Mitigation Conclusions

    We have carefully evaluated ADOT&PF's mitigation measures and 
considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine 
whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the 
affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our 
evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the 
following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, 
and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure 
is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the 
proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse 
impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for 
applicant implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
    (1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal);
    (2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals 
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may 
contribute to 1 above);
    (3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine 
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental 
take (this goal may contribute to 1 above);
    (4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to 
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1 above);
    (5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or 
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat 
during a biologically important time; and
    (6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of ADOT&PF's measures, including 
information from monitoring of implementation of mitigation measures 
very similar to those described here under previous IHAs from other 
marine construction projects, we have determined that the mitigation 
measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for 
incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of 
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result 
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or 
impacts on populations of marine

[[Page 17214]]

mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. ADOT&PF 
submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA 
application. It can be found in Appendix B of the Application.
    Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our 
understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g., 
presence, abundance, distribution, density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of 
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological);
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, 
species, or stock; and
     Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to 
marine mammals.
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Monitoring Measures

    The monitoring measures described below for the Final IHA have been 
updated somewhat from those listed in the notice of proposed 
authorization, to reflect NMFS' current standard monitoring measures 
for applicable IHAs. These updates do not change the substance, scope, 
or anticipated effectiveness of the monitoring measures.
    Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring will be conducted by qualified 
marine mammal observers (MMOs), who are trained biologists, with the 
following minimum qualifications:
     Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) 
are required;
     At least one observer must have prior experience working 
as an observer;
     Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate 
degree in biological science or related field) or training for 
experience;
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols.
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from 
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown 
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary; and
     NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    In order to effectively monitor the pile driving monitoring zones, 
the MMOs will be positioned at the best practical vantage points. The 
monitoring position may vary based on pile driving activities and the 
locations of the piles and driving equipment. These may include the 
catwalk at the ferry terminal, the contractor barge, on a vessel, or 
another location deemed to be more advantageous. The monitoring 
location will be identified with the following characteristics: (1) 
Unobstructed view of pile being driven; (2) Unobstructed view of all 
water within a 3,265 m (vibratory driving) and 2,090 m (impact driving) 
radius of each pile, although it is understood that monitoring may be 
impaired at longer distances; (3) Clear view of pile driving operator 
or construction foreman in the event of radio failure; and; (4) Safe 
distance from pile driving activities in the construction area.
    A total of two observers will be on site and actively observing the 
shutdown and disturbance zones during all pile driving and extraction 
activities. Observers will use their naked eye with the aid of big-eye 
binoculars and a spotting scope to search continuously for marine 
mammals during all pile driving and extraction activities. One observer 
will always be positioned on the dock looking out to monitor the zone 
that is currently in effect. A second observer will be located on 
either the dock supplementing efforts of the first observer in 
monitoring from that point, or, when weather and safety conditions 
permit, on a vessel transiting the observation zones. In the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA, NMFS had recommended that ADOT&PF 
coordinate with the NPS and whale-watching charters to augment their 
land-based monitoring with information from boats in Icy Strait/
Passage. However, most NPS surveys and whale-watching charters occur 
outside of the designated work windows for this project (i.e., 
September through November and March through May). Therefore, this 
protocol has been removed as a monitoring requirement under this IHA. 
However, monitoring will be augmented through the use of two on-site 
observers, rather than the one on-site observer required under the 
proposed IHA.
    The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
     Monitoring will begin 30 minutes prior to pile driving. 
This will ensure that all marine mammals in the monitoring zone are 
documented and that no marine mammals are present in the injury zone;
     If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown 
zone, pile driving operations shall cease. Pile driving will only 
commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of the 
marine mammals or if it has not been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 
minutes for cetaceans or 15 minutes for pinnipeds. Their behavior will 
be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone may only be declared 
clear, and pile driving started, when the entire shutdown zone is 
visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, etc.);
     When a marine mammal is observed, its location will be 
determined using a rangefinder to verify distance and a GPS or compass 
to verify heading;
     The MMOs will record any cetacean or pinniped present in 
the injury zone. The Level A zone extends out to 630 m from the site of 
impact pile driving activity for harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise. 
The Level A zone for harbor seals during impact driving is set at 285 
m. There are no Level A take zones applicable to other species for 
which take is authorized.
     The MMOs will record any cetacean or pinniped present in 
the disturbance zone. For impact driving the Level B harassment area 
encompasses a radius of 2,090 m from the site of pile driving. During 
vibratory driving radius of the Level B harassment area extends to 
3,265 m.
     At the end of the pile driving day, post-construction 
monitoring will be conducted for 30 minutes beyond the cessation of 
pile driving;
     If any marine mammal species are encountered during 
activities that are not listed in Table 1 for authorized

[[Page 17215]]

taking and are likely to be exposed to SPLs greater than or equal to 
160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for impact driving and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) for vibratory driving, then the ADOT&PF must stop pile driving 
activities and report observations to NMFS' Office of Protected 
Resources;
     If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the 
observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal 
shutdown zone (e.g., excessive wind or fog), pile installation and 
removal will cease. Pile driving will not be initiated until the entire 
shutdown zone is visible.

Data Collection

    Observers are required to use approved data forms. Among other 
pieces of information, ADOT&PF will record detailed information about 
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to 
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting 
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the ADOT&PF will attempt 
to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the 
number of incidents of take. At a minimum, the following information 
will be collected on the sighting forms:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
     Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
     Detailed information about any implementation of 
shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and 
description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of 
the animal, if any;
     Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
     Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
     Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
     Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
     Other human activity in the area.

Sound Source Verification

    SSV testing of impact and vibratory pile driving will be conducted 
for this project within seven days of initiating underwater pile 
driving work. The monitoring plan will be in agreement with a NMFS 
document titled ``Guidance Document: Data Collection Methods to 
Characterize Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving Source Levels Relevant 
to Marine Mammals'' dated January 31, 2012. The SSV will be conducted 
by an acoustical firm with prior experience conducting SSV tests in 
Alaska. NMFS must approve the acoustic monitoring plan. Results will be 
sent to NMFS no later than 14 days after field-testing has been 
completed. If necessary, the shutdown, Level A, and Level B harassment 
zones will be adjusted to meet MMPA requirements within 7 days of NMFS 
receiving field results.

Reporting

    ADOT&PF will notify NMFS prior to the initiation of the pile 
driving activities and will provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report 
within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. This report 
will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during 
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have 
been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days of 
submission of the draft final report, the draft final report will 
constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report 
must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

Estimated Take

    This section includes an estimate of the number of incidental 
``takes'' proposed for authorization pursuant to this IHA, which will 
inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is 
``small'' and the negligible impact determination.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, 
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).''
    No serious injury or mortality is anticipated to result from this 
activity. Limited take of three species of marine mammal (i.e., harbor 
seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise) by Level A harassment 
(injury) is authorized due to potential auditory injury that cannot 
reasonably be prevented through mitigation. Mitigation zones are 
expected to reduce Level A harassment for these three species and 
prevent Level A harassment for all other species. Level B harassment 
(behavioral disturbance) is expected to occur and take is authorized 
for the numbers identified below.
    Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types 
of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to 
estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular 
distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of 
sound.
    ADOT&PF has requested authorization for the incidental taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals near the Gustavus Ferry Terminal that 
may result from impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and 
vibratory pile removal. In order to estimate the potential incidents of 
take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first 
estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the 
activity and then consider in combination with information about marine 
mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide 
information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to 
marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the 
sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance 
information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take.

Sound Thresholds

    We use sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that 
produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a 
take by injury or behavioral harassment might occur. These thresholds 
are used to estimate when injury or harassment may occur.

Distance to Sound Thresholds

    The sound field in the project area is the existing ambient noise 
plus additional construction noise from the project. The primary 
components of the project expected to affect marine mammals are the 
sounds generated by impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and 
vibratory pile removal.
    In order to calculate distances to the Level A and Level B sound 
thresholds, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data that had been collected 
at the Kake Ferry Terminal by ADOT&PF. ADOT&PF implemented SSV 
measurements at Kake Harbor, Alaska and used this information as a 
proxy SSL for the Gustavus Ferry Terminal project. The results 
determined a SSL of 157.7 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms at 10 m for vibratory 
driving, 194.8 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms

[[Page 17216]]

at 10 m for impact driving, and single strike/shot sound exposure level 
(SEL) of 179.3 dB. These SSLs are different than those found in the 
notice of proposed authorization. The Kake Harbor findings were re-
analyzed to include additional data from a single restraint pile that 
had not been included in the original notice, resulting in elevated 
SSLs and larger Level A and Level B isopleths associated with the 
planned impact and vibratory driving.
    The formula below is used to calculate underwater sound 
propagation. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic 
intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL 
parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, 
source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom 
composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * log10 (R1/R2)

Where:

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven 
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement.

NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15 dB 
per tenfold increase in distance. ADOT&PF analyzed the available 
underwater acoustic data utilizing the practical spreading loss model.
    On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for 
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing 
(Guidance, available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm). This new guidance established new thresholds for 
predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under 
the MMPA. In the Federal Register notice (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained 
the approach it would take during a transition period, wherein we 
balance the need to consider this new best available science with the 
fact that some applicants have already committed time and resources to 
the development of analyses based on our previous guidance and have 
constraints that preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well 
as where the action is in the agency's decision-making pipeline. In 
that Notice, we included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would 
inform the most appropriate approach for considering the new Guidance, 
including: The scope of effects; how far in the process the applicant 
has progressed; when the authorization is needed; the cost and 
complexity of the analysis; and the degree to which the guidance is 
expected to affect our analysis. In this case, ADOT&PF initially 
submitted a request for authorization on June 30, 2015. A revised 
application was submitted on April 15, 2016. A Federal Register notice 
announcing the proposed authorization was published on June 23, 2016 
(81 FR 40852). Under the new Guidance, NMFS determined that there is a 
greater likelihood of auditory injury for low-frequency cetaceans 
(i.e., humpback whale, minke whale); high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., 
harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise); and Phocid pinnipeds (i.e., harbor 
seals) during impact driving than was considered in our notice of 
proposed authorization (81 FR 40852). In order to address this 
likelihood, we increased the required shutdown zones for humpback and 
minke whales, harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, and harbor seals. In 
addition, to account for the potential that harbor seals, harbor 
porpoises and Dall's porpoises may enter into the Level A take zones 
that exists beyond the designated shutdown zone, we authorize the 
taking by Level A harassment of limited numbers of these species. In 
summary, we have considered the new Guidance and believe that the 
likelihood of injury is adequately addressed in the analysis contained 
herein and appropriate protective measures are in place in the IHA.
    The calculation of the Level A harassment zones utilized the 
methods presented in Appendix D of the Guidance, and the accompanying 
User Spreadsheet. The Guidance provides updated PTS onset thresholds 
using the cumulative SEL (SELcum) metric, which incorporates 
marine mammal auditory weighting functions, to identify the received 
levels, or acoustic thresholds, at which individual marine mammals are 
predicted to experience changes in their hearing sensitivity for acute, 
incidental exposure to all underwater anthropogenic sound sources. The 
Guidance (Appendix D) and its companion User Spreadsheet provide 
alternative methodology for incorporating these more complex thresholds 
and associated weighting functions.
    The User Spreadsheet accounts for effective hearing ranges using 
Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and ADOT&PF's application uses the 
recommended values for vibratory and impact driving therein. NMFS' new 
acoustic thresholds use dual metrics of SELcum and peak 
sound level (PK) for impulsive sounds (e.g., impact pile driving) and 
SELcum for non-impulsive sounds (e.g., vibratory pile 
driving) (Table 3). ADOT&PF used source level measurements from similar 
pile driving events and, using the User Spreadsheet, applied the 
updated PTS onset thresholds for impulsive PK and SELcum 
assuming 600 strikes per pile and installation of 3 piles per day to 
determine distance to the isopleths for PTS onset for impact pile 
driving. For vibratory pile driving, ADOT&PF used the User Spreadsheet 
to determine isopleth estimates for PTS onset using the cumulative 
sound exposure level metric (LE) assuming a driving time of 
up to 6 hours per day. In determining the cumulative sound exposure 
levels, the Guidance considers the duration of the activity, the sound 
exposure level produced by the source during one working day, and the 
effective hearing range of the receiving species. In the case of the 
duel metric acoustic thresholds (Lpk and LE) for 
impulsive sound, the larger of the two isopleths for calculating PTS 
onset is used. These values were then used to develop mitigation 
measures for proposed pile driving activities (Table 3).
    NMFS's new acoustic guidance established new thresholds for 
predicting auditory injury (Level A Harassment). The Guidance indicates 
that there is a greater likelihood of auditory injury for low-frequency 
cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans, and Phocid pinnipeds than was 
considered in our notice of proposed authorization. The practical 
spreading loss model estimates injury zones for functional hearing 
groups for which take is authorized for pulsed sound generated during 
impact pile driving (Table 4) and non-pulsed sound during vibratory 
pile driving (Table 5).

[[Page 17217]]



            Table 3--Summary of PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
                                            (received level)
         Hearing group         -----------------------------------------
                                       Impulsive          Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans..  Lpk,flat: 219 dB,       LE,LF,24h: 199
                                 LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.      dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans..  Lpk,flat: 230 dB,       LE,MF,24h: 198
                                 LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.      dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.  Lpk,flat: 202 dB,       LE,HF,24h: 173
                                 LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.      dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)           Lpk,flat: 218 dB,       LE,PW,24h: 201
 (Underwater).                   LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.      dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)          Lpk,flat: 232 dB,       LE,OW,24h: 219
 (Underwater).                   LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.      dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever
  results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-
  impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure
  level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds
  should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa,
  and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of
  1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
  American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However,
  peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency
  weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence,
  the subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound
  pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure
  level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory
  weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
  and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The
  cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a
  multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty
  cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to
  indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.


       Table 4--Underwater Level A Injury Threshold Decibel Levels and Corresponding Isopleths for Functional Hearing Groups During Impact Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     High-frequency
                                                                  Low-frequency     Mid-frequency       cetaceans          Phocid            Otariid
                         Hearing group                              cetaceans         cetaceans          (harbor          pinnipeds         pinnipeds
                                                                (humpback whale,   (killer whale)       porpoise,       (harbor seal)     (Steller sea
                                                                   minke whale)                     Dall's porpoise)                          lion)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELcum Threshold..............................................               183               185               155               185               203
PTS Isopleth to threshold (m)/Impact Driving..................             527.5              18.8             628.3             282.3              20.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All decibel levels referenced to 1 [mu]Pa. Note all thresholds are based off root mean square (rms) levels
** PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift.

    Based on this data NMFS will require shutdown zones that extend to 
550 m for humpback whale and minke whale; 100 m for harbor seal, harbor 
porpoise and Dall's porpoise; and 25 m for killer whale and Steller sea 
lion. NMFS will also require Level A take zones which are areas beyond 
the shutdown zones where animals may be exposed to sound levels that 
could result in permanent threshold shift (PTS). The Level A zone of 
628.3 m will be rounded to a zone of 630 m for harbor porpoise and 
Dall's porpoise for monitoring purposes while the Level A zone of 282.3 
for harbor seals will be rounded to 285 m. There are no Level A take 
zones applicable to other species for which take is authorized.

   Table 5--Underwater Level A Harassment Threshold Decibel Levels and Corresponding Isopleths for Functional Hearing Groups During Vibratory Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     High-frequency
                                                                  Low-frequency     Mid-frequency       cetaceans          Phocid            Otariid
                         Hearing group                              cetaceans         cetaceans          (harbor          pinnipeds         pinnipeds
                                                                (humpback whale,   (killer whale)       porpoise,       (harbor seal)     (Steller sea
                                                                   minke whale)                     Dall's porpoise)                          lion)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELcum Threshold..............................................               183               185               155               185               203
PTS Isopleth to threshold (m)/Impact Driving..................              13.6               1.2              20.1               8.3               0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All decibel levels referenced to 1 [mu]Pa. Note all thresholds are based off root mean square (rms) levels
** PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift.

    Based on these results NMFS will require a shutdown zone during 
vibratory driving of 20 m for harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, 
humpback whale and minke whale. A standard 10 m zone for killer whale, 
harbor seal and Steller sea lion will also be implemented during 
vibratory driving.
    The disturbance zone for impact pile driving is approximately 2,090 
m from the driven pile for all marine mammals. The disturbance zone for 
continuous noise generated by a vibratory hammer is larger, predicted 
to extend for 3,265 m from the pile. Table 6 illustrates thresholds and 
isopleths for this activity that might result in Level B harassment 
impacts to a marine mammal.

[[Page 17218]]



 Table 6--Underwater Level B Disturbance Threshold Decibel Levels for Marine Mammals and Corresponding Isopleths
                                      for Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Behavioral disruption  for non-
         Type of sound source            Behavioral disruption  for impulse   pulse noise  (e.g., vibratory pile
                                        noise  (e.g., impact  pile driving)           driving, drilling)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold.............................  160 dB rms.........................  120 dB.
Isopleth to threshold (m).............  2,090 m............................  3,265 m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All decibel levels referenced to 1 [mu]Pa. Note all thresholds are based off root mean square (rms) levels.

    The method used for calculating potential exposures to impact and 
vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold uses local marine 
mammal data sets and data from an IHA monitoring report from a similar 
project in the area. It is assumed that all pilings installed at each 
site would have an underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling 
that causes the greatest noise disturbance (i.e., the piling furthest 
from shore) installed with the method that has the largest ZOI. The 
largest underwater disturbance ZOI would be produced by vibratory 
driving steel piles. Note that the ZOIs for each threshold are not 
spherical and are truncated by land masses on either side of the 
channel which would dissipate sound pressure waves.
    Since density information was not available for marine mammal 
species near Gustavus, NMFS relied on two observational data sets. For 
the first study, ADOT&PF hired two observers to visit the Gustavus dock 
twice every day between March 7, 2016 and May 15, 2016. They scanned 
for marine mammals within 2000 m for at least 30 minutes on each visit 
and recorded observations. Because these data are at the project 
location at the same time of year as the Spring phase of work for this 
project, and in the absence of survey data, NMFS considers these data 
best available for March through May.
    Similar data are not available for the September through November 
work phase. However, a nearby ferry terminal reconstruction project 
took place in Hoonah, Alaska in the Fall of 2015. Hoonah is located 32 
kilometers (km) southeast of Gustavus. An IHA was issued for the Hoonah 
project which required submission of a marine mammal monitoring report 
after project completion (BerberABAM 2016). The Hoonah project required 
the use of both land and vessel-based observers to monitor waters that 
spanned the width of Icy Strait, reaching as far north as the southern 
shore of Pleasant Island. The ZOI for the Gustavus project extends to 
the northern shores of Pleasant Island and westward into Icy Strait. 
While the ZOIs of the Hoonah and Gustavus projects do not directly 
overlap, NMFS felt that marine mammals are likely to traverse both ZOIs 
in comparable numbers. Note that opportunistic sightings are not 
considered abundance estimates and do not account for unseen animals in 
the area and in the water. Opportunistic surveys do not have a 
correction factor for those uncounted animals. Nevertheless, NMFS 
considers the data from the 2016 ADOT&PF study and 2015 Hoonah 
monitoring report to be the best data available, respectively, for the 
March through May and September through November periods.
    In order to estimate take, NMFS assumed the following:
     50 days of pile driving are assumed to occur in this 
exposure analysis (ADOT&PF states that between 16 and 50 days of pile 
driving activity could occur).
     33 days of pile driving will occur in March, April, 
October, and November (non-charter season) and 17 days of pile driving 
will occur in May and September (charter season).

[cir] 33 days in 4 non-charter months = 8.25 days/month outside of the 
charter season
[cir] 17 days in 2 charter months = 8.5 days/month during the charter 
season

     The highest number of observed animals on any one day of 
the month will be utilized.
    The calculation for marine mammal exposures, except for Dall's 
porpoise, was estimated as follows:

(the highest number of animals observed per day in a given month) x 
(number of days of pile driving/removal activity in that month). The 
monthly totals were added to arrive at a final estimate.

    Note that with the exception of Dall's porpoise, the estimated 
numbers of animal exposures in the proposed IHA Federal Register Notice 
(81 FR 40852) are different from those listed in this Final IHA Notice 
of Issuance. NMFS determined that the new site-specific information 
contained in the 2016 ADOT&PF and 2015 Hoonah surveys was the best 
available and incorporated it as part of the methodology described 
above in the Final IHA. Additionally, the proposed IHA indicated that 
the first period of construction would occur from September through 
November of 2017 while the second period was scheduled for March 
through May of 2018. The applicant opted to delay the start date until 
2018. Therefore, the Final IHA authorizes take during the first 
construction period from March through May of 2018 as well as the 
second construction period running from September through November of 
2018.

Steller Sea Lion

    There are numerous Steller sea lion haulouts in Icy Strait but none 
occurring in Icy Passage (Mathews et al., 2011; Tod Sebens, CSE, 
Stephen Vanderhoff, SWE, Janet Neilson, NPS, personal communication). 
The nearest Steller sea lion haulout sites are located on Black Rock on 
the south side of Pleasant Island and Point Carolus west across the 
Strait from Point Gustavus (Mathews et al., 2011). Both haulouts are 
over 16 km from the Gustavus Ferry Terminal.
    Steller sea lions are common in the ferry terminal area during the 
charter fishing season (May to September) and are known to haul out on 
the public dock (Tod Sebens, CSE, Stephen Vanderhoff, SWE, Janet 
Neilson, NPS, personal communication Bruce Kruger, ADF&G, personal 
communication). During the charter fishing season, Steller sea lions 
begin arriving at the ferry terminal as early as 2:00 p.m. local time, 
reaching maximum abundance when the charter boats return at 
approximately 5:00 p.m. local time. The sea lions forage on the 
carcasses of the sport fish catch and then vacate the area.
    There are no density estimates of Steller sea lions available in 
the action area. The best available information on the distribution of 
these marine mammals in the study area comes from the 2016 ADOT&PF 
study and the 2015 Hoonah monitoring report. Individuals taken would 
likely be a mix of solitary adult males and females. NMFS does not 
anticipate exposure of Steller sea

[[Page 17219]]

lion pups, as there are no rookeries within the action area.
    NMFS has classified Steller sea lions as two distinct population 
segments under the ESA--the western and eastern stocks. The western 
DPS, extending from Japan around the Pacific Rim to Cape Suckling in 
Alaska (144[deg] W.), was listed as endangered due to its continued 
decline and lack of recovery. The eastern DPS, extending from Cape 
Suckling (144[deg] W.) east to British Columbia and south to 
California, was previously listed as threatened under the ESA. NMFS has 
removed the eastern DPS from the list of threatened species, while the 
western DPS remains listed as endangered. Note that since the actual 
percentage of western DPS versus eastern DPS of Steller sea lions in 
the project area is unknown, NMFS will conservatively estimate that all 
individuals are from the endangered western DPS.
    Based on the information presented in Table 7, NMFS has authorized 
709 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea lions. No Level A takes are 
authorized since the shutdown zone for Steller sea lions during impact 
or vibratory pile driving is larger than the PTS isopleth.

             Table 7--Estimated Monthly Total Number of Steller Sea Lions Exposed to Continuous and Impact Sourced Sounds From Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Maximum
                                                                                             Number of       number of
             Month/year                 Project activity            Charter season         days of pile       animals        Estimated  monthly total
                                            occurring                                         driving      observed on a    number of  exposed animals
                                                                                                            single day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018.........................  Construction..........  No.........................            8.25           \2\ 4  33.
April 2018.........................  Construction..........  No.........................            8.25           \2\ 7  57.75.
May 2018...........................  Construction..........  Yes........................             8.5           \2\ 6  51.
September 2018.....................  Construction..........  Yes........................             8.5          \1\ 26  221.
October 2018.......................  Construction..........  No.........................            8.25          \1\ 33  272.25.
November 2018......................  Construction..........  No.........................            8.25           \2\ 9  74.25.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1Total.........................  ......................  ...........................  ..............  ..............  709.25.
                                                                                                                          709 (rounded).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates come from observations made at the dock during March-May of 2016.
\2\ These estimates are from monitoring in nearby Icy Strait in 2015.

    Note that the final take numbers for Steller sea lion calculated in 
this Notice as well as the Environmental Assessment (EA) were slightly 
different than those included in the Biological Opinion which was 
drafted under the ESA. In the Biological Opinion, a total of 708 takes 
were calculated while 709 were estimated for this Notice and the EA. 
This occurred because the EA calculated takes based on 8.25 or 8.5 days 
of pile driving per month, as applicable, while the Biological Opinion 
used a single average value of 8.33 days per month, resulting in a 
slightly different final take number. However, this small discrepancy 
will have no practical impacts because the numbers are so close and the 
take numbers were calculated using conservative assumptions, so NMFS 
does not anticipate the applicant taking anywhere close to the 
authorized number of takes.

Humpback Whale

    NMFS used humpback whale data collected from the 2016 ADOT&PF study 
and 2015 Hoonah monitoring report to estimate take using the 
methodology described above. Based on the information presented in 
Table 8, NMFS has authorized 600 Level B harassment takes of humpback 
whales. No Level A takes are authorized since the shutdown zones are 
larger than the PTS isopleths.

 Table 8--Estimated Monthly Total Number of Humpback Whales Exposed to Continuous and Impact Sourced Sounds From
                                                  Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                                               Number of       number of
                Month/year                   days of pile       animals      Estimated  monthly total  number of
                                                driving      observed on a             exposed animals
                                                              single day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018................................            8.25           \1\ 6  49.5.
April 2018................................            8.25          \1\ 22  181.5.
May 2018..................................             8.5          \1\ 10  85.
September 2018............................             8.5          \2\ 15  127.5.
October 2018..............................            8.25          \2\ 18  148.5.
November 2018.............................            8.25           \2\ 1  8.25.
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  600.25.
                                                                            600 (rounded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates come from observations made at the dock during March-May of 2016.
\2\ These estimates are from monitoring in nearby Icy Strait in 2015.


[[Page 17220]]

Harbor Seal

    There are no documented haulout sites for harbor seals in the 
vicinity of the project. The nearest haulouts, rookeries, and pupping 
grounds occur in Glacier Bay over 32 km from the ferry terminal. 
However, occasionally an individual will haul out on rocks on the north 
side of Pleasant Island (Stephen Vanderhoff, SWE, personal 
communication). A recent study of post-breeding harbor seal migrations 
from Glacier Bay demonstrates that some harbor seals traveled 
extensively beyond the boundaries of Glacier Bay during the post-
breeding season (Womble and Gende 2013). Strong fidelity of individuals 
for haulout sites during the breeding season was documented in this 
study as well. Harbor seals are also documented in Icy Passage in the 
winter and early spring (Womble and Gende 2013). Using the 2016 ADOT&PF 
and 2015 Hoonah data, NMFS has authorized 675 total takes of harbor 
seals as shown in Table 9. Since the PTS isopleth (282.3 m) during 
impact driving is greater than the shutdown zones (100 m) NMFS is 
authorizing Level A take using the following calculation:

Level A takes = (PTS isopleth - Shutdown zone)/Level B Isopleth (3,265 
m) * Total Takes;
Animals in Shutdown Zone = (Shutdown zone isopleth/Level B Isopleth) * 
Total Takes; and
Level B takes = Total Takes - Level A Takes - Shutdown Takes

Using these calculations, NMFS is authorizing 38 Level A and 616 Level 
B harbor seal takes as shown in Table 9.

  Table 9--Estimated Monthly Total Number of Harbor Seals Exposed to Continuous and Impact Sourced Sounds From
                                                  Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                                               Number of       number of
                Month/year                   days of pile       animals      Estimated  monthly total  number of
                                                driving      observed on a             exposed animals
                                                              single day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018................................            8.25          \1\ 20  165.
April 2018................................            8.25          \1\ 16  132.
May 2018..................................             8.5           \1\ 7  59.
September 2018............................             8.5          \2\ 22  187.
October 2018..............................            8.25          \2\ 16  132.
November 2018.............................            8.25           \2\ 0  0.
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  675.
                                                                            21 Shutdown Zone.
                                                                            38 Level A.
                                                                            616 Level B.
                                                                            654 Total.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates come from observations made at the dock during March-May of 2016.
\2\ These estimates are from monitoring in nearby Icy Strait in 2015.

Harbor Porpoise

    Harbor porpoise are common in Icy Strait. Concentrations of harbor 
porpoise were consistently found in varying habitats surrounding 
Zarembo Island and Wrangell Island, and throughout the Glacier Bay and 
Icy Strait regions (Dahlheim et al., 2009). These concentrations 
persisted throughout the three seasons sampled. Dahlheim (2015) 
indicated that 332 resident harbor porpoises occur in the Icy Strait 
area, though the population has been declining across Southeast Alaska 
since the early 1990's (Dahlheim et al., 2012). During a 2014 survey, 
Barlow et al. (in press) observed 462 harbor porpoises in the Glacier 
Bay and Icy Strait area during a three-month summer survey period. It 
is estimated that harbor porpoise are observed on at least 75 percent 
of whale watch excursions (75 of 100 days) during the May through 
September months (Tod Sebens, CSE, Stephen Vanderhoff, SWE, personal 
communication).
    Using the 2016 ADOT&PF and 2015 Hoonah data, NMFS has authorized 
158 total takes of harbor porpoise as shown in Table 10. Since the PTS 
isopleth (628.3 m) is greater than the shutdown zone (100 m), NMFS is 
authorizing Level A take. Using the same calculation utilized to derive 
harbor seal takes, NMFS is authorizing 26 Level A and 127 Level B 
harbor porpoise takes.

Table 10--Estimated Monthly Total Number of Harbor Porpoise Exposed to Continuous and Impact Sourced Sounds From
                                                  Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                                               Number of       number of
                Month/year                   days of pile       animals      Estimated  monthly total  number of
                                                driving      observed on a             exposed animals
                                                              single day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018................................            8.25           \1\ 7  57.75.
April 2018................................            8.25           \1\ 4  33.
May 2018..................................             8.5           \1\ 3  25.5.
September 2018............................             8.5           \2\ 2  17.
October 2018..............................            8.25           \2\ 3  24.75.
November 2018.............................            8.25           \2\ 0  0.
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17221]]

 
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  158.
                                                                            5 Shutdown.
                                                                            26 Level A.
                                                                            127 Level B.
                                                                            153 Total.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates come from observations made at the dock during March-May of 2016.
\2\ These estimates are from monitoring in nearby Icy Strait in 2015.

Killer Whale

    Based on observations of local marine mammal specialists, the 
probability of killer whales occurring in Icy Passage is low. However, 
they do occur in Icy Strait and have been observed in Icy Passage. 
Since there is no density information available for killer whales in 
this area, NMFS used the 2016 ADOT&PF and 2015 Hoonah data sources to 
estimate killer whale exposures. NMFS has authorized 126 Level B 
harassment takes of killer whales as shown in Table 11. No Level A 
takes are authorized since the shutdown zones for killer whales are 
larger than the PTS isopleths.

 Table 11--Estimated Monthly Total Number of Killer Whales Exposed to Continuous and Impact Sourced Sounds From
                                                  Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                                               Number of       number of
                Month/year                   days of pile       animals      Estimated  monthly total  number of
                                                driving      observed on a             exposed animals
                                                              single day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018................................            8.25           \1\ 0  0.
April 2018................................            8.25           \1\ 7  57.75.
May 2018..................................             8.5           \1\ 0  0.
September 2018............................             8.5           \2\ 8  68.
October 2018..............................            8.25           \2\ 0  0.
November 2018.............................            8.25           \2\ 0  0.
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  125.75.
                                                                            126 (rounded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates come from observations made at the dock during March-May of 2016.
\2\ These estimates are from monitoring in nearby Icy Strait in 2015.

Minke Whale

    Based on observations of local marine mammal specialists, the 
probability of minke whales occurring in Icy Passage is low. However, 
they have been documented in Icy Strait and Icy Passage and could 
potentially transit through the disturbance zone. The 2015 Hoonah 
survey conducted from September through November did not document any 
minke whales. However, results from the 2016 ADOT&PF March through May 
survey showed a monthly high of one minke whale sighting per day in 
April and two minke whales per day in May. An assumption of 8.25 days 
of driving in April (8.25 * 1 whale) and 8.5 days in May (8.5 * 2 
whales) results in 25 minke whale exposures. NMFS will also 
conservatively assume that two whales may be exposed per day of driving 
in March (8.25 * 2 whales). Based on these assumptions NMFS is 
authorizing Level B harassment take of 42 minke whales as is shown in 
Table 12. No Level A takes are authorized since the shutdown zones for 
minke whales are larger than the PTS isopleth.

  Table 12--Estimated Monthly Total Number of Minke Whales Exposed to Continuous and Impact Sourced Sounds From
                                                  Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                                               Number of       number of
                Month/year                   days of pile       animals      Estimated  monthly total  number of
                                                driving      observed on a             exposed animals
                                                              single day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2018................................            8.25               2  16.5.
April 2018................................            8.25           \1\ 1  8.25.
May 2018..................................             8.5           \1\ 2  17.
September 2018............................             8.5           \2\ 0  0
October 2018..............................            8.25           \2\ 0  0.

[[Page 17222]]

 
November 2018.............................            8.25           \2\ 0  0.
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  41.75.
                                                                            42 (rounded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates come from observations made at the dock during March-May of 2016.
\2\ These estimates are from monitoring in nearby Icy Strait in 2015.

Dall's Porpoise

    Dall's porpoise are documented in Icy Strait but not Icy Passage. 
Dahlheim et al., (2009) found Dall's porpoise throughout Southeast 
Alaska, with concentrations of animals consistently found in Icy 
Strait, Lynn Canal, Stephens Passage, upper Chatham Strait, Frederick 
Sound, and Clarence Strait. It is estimated that there are anywhere 
from 4 to 12 sightings of Dall's porpoise in Icy Strait per season 
during the May through September whale watching charter months (Tod 
Sebens, CSE, Stephen Vanderhoff, SWE, personal communication). NPS 
documented seven sightings in Icy Strait since 1993 in September, 
October, November, April, and May. The mean group size of Dall's 
porpoise in Southeast Alaska is estimated at three individuals 
(Dahlheim et al., 2009).
    The 2016 ADOT&PF and 2015 Hoonah studies did not record any 
sightings of Dall's porpoise. However, they are occasionally sighted by 
whale watching tours in Icy Strait and could potentially transit from 
the Strait into the ZOI in Icy Passage. For this analysis, NMFS 
conservatively assumes a maximum number of 12 group sightings per 
season between May and September, which equates to 2.4 sightings per 
month. Using this number it is estimated that the following number of 
Dall's porpoise may be present in the disturbance zone:

Underwater exposure estimate: 2.4 group sightings/month x 3 animals/
group x 6 months of pile driving activity (March-May; September-
November) = 43.2

    Since the PTS isopleth during impact driving (628.3 m) is greater 
than the shutdown zone (100 m) NMFS is authorizing Level A take. Using 
the same calculation utilized to derive harbor seal takes, NMFS is 
authorizing take of 42 Dall's porpoise, with 7 Level A and 35 Level B 
takes. According to this calculation, one porpoise would theoretically 
occur in the shutdown zone and, therefore, is not counted as a take.

Analyses and Determinations

Negligible Impact Analysis

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as ``an impact resulting from 
the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). 
A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not 
enough information on which to base an impact determination. In 
addition to considering the authorized number of marine mammals that 
might be ``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, 
such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), 
the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or 
location, migration, etc.), and effects on habitat, the status of the 
affected stocks, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. 
Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations 
(54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and 
ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into these analyses 
via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in 
the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate 
where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient 
noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all 
the species listed in Table 1. There is little information about the 
nature of severity of the impacts or the size, status, or structure of 
any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this 
activity.
    Pile driving and pile extraction activities associated with the 
Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements Project, as outlined previously, 
have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, 
the specified activities may result in Level B harassment (behavioral 
disturbance) for all species authorized for take, from underwater sound 
generated from pile driving and removal. Level A injury may also occur 
to a limited number of harbor seal, harbor porpoise and Dall's 
porpoise. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species 
are present in the Level A and Level B ensonified zones when pile 
driving is under way.
    No serious injury or mortality is anticipated to result from this 
activity. Limited take of three species of marine mammal by Level A 
harassment (injury) is authorized due to potential auditory injury that 
cannot reasonably be prevented through mitigation. Any take by Level A 
harassment will potentially be in the form of PTS and may affect small 
numbers of harbor seal, harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise. ADOT&PF 
will enact required mitigation measures to minimize Level A take. 
ADOT&PF will also record all occurrences of marine mammals in specified 
Level A zones. In this analysis, we considered the potential for small 
numbers of three species to incur auditory injury and found that it 
would not impact our preliminary determinations.
    Any takes from Level B harassment will be due to behavioral 
disturbance and TTS. As part of required mitigation, ADOT&PF will 
employ soft start techniques during pile driving operations to allow 
marine mammals to vacate the area prior to commencement of full power 
driving. Pile caps will also be employed during impact pile driving to 
reduce underwater noise levels.
    ADOT&PF's proposed activities are localized and of relatively short 
duration. The entire project area is limited to the Gustavus Ferry 
Terminal area and its immediate surroundings. Specifically, the use of 
impact driving

[[Page 17223]]

will be limited to an estimated maximum of 57 hours over the course of 
16 to 50 days of construction. Total vibratory pile driving time is 
estimated at 114 hours over the same period. While impact driving does 
have the potential to cause injury to marine mammals, mitigation in the 
form of shutdown zones should limit exposure to Level A thresholds. 
Vibratory driving does not have significant potential to cause injury 
to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced and 
the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Additionally, 
no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are 
known to be within the ensonified areas during the construction 
timeframe.
    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities are 
limited in time and would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. 
The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, 
thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a 
portion of the foraging range However, a relatively small area of 
habitat may be affected, so the impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 
2006; Lerma 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from 
the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile 
driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only 
in association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory 
driving, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to human 
activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to orient 
towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile extraction and 
driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful 
than, numerous construction activities conducted in other similar 
locations, which have taken place with no reported serious injuries or 
mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse 
consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of 
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are 
unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt 
foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small 
subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant 
realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and would 
not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole.
    For pinnipeds, no rookeries are present in the project area. 
Furthermore, the project area is not known to provide foraging habitat 
of any special importance (other than is afforded by the known 
migration of salmonids).
    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the 
following factors: (1) The possibility of serious injury or mortality 
to authorized species may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) 
the limited temporal and spatial impacts to marine mammal habitat; (3) 
the absence of any major rookeries near the project area; and (4) the 
presumed efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the 
effects of the specified activity to the level of effecting the least 
practicable impact upon the affected species. In combination, we 
believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence 
from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects 
of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on 
individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of 
recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-
level impacts.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the planned monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
ADOT&PF's Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements Project will have a 
negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

                 Table 13--Estimated Number of Exposures and Percentage of Stocks That May Be Subject to Level A and Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Level A         Level B     Total proposed
                 Species                    authorized      authorized      authorized      Stock(s) abundance estimate      Percentage of total stock
                                               takes           takes           takes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion........................               0             709             709  50,983 (western distinct         1.43%[sol]1.39%.
                                                                                           population segment in Alaska)/
                                                                                           71,562 (eastern stock).
Humpback whale..........................               0       600/(36*)       600/(36*)  10,103 (Central North Pacific    5.93%[sol]1.1%.
                                                                                           Stock)/3,264 (Mexico DPS).
Harbor Seal.............................              38             616             654  7,210 (Glacier Bay/Icy Strait).  9.07%.
Harbor Porpoise.........................              26             127             153  11,146 (Southeast Alaska)......  1.37%.
Killer whale............................               0             126             126  261 (Northern resident)/587      48.2% 21.4% 51.8%.
                                                                                           (Gulf of Alaska transient)/243
                                                                                           (West Coast transient).
Minke whale.............................               0              42              42  Unknown........................  Unknown.
Dall's Porpoise.........................               7              35              42  83,400.........................  <0.01%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 6.1 percent of humpbacks whales in southeast Alaska (36) are from Mexico DPS (Wade et al. 2016).

Small Numbers Analysis

    Table 13 depicts the number of animals that could be exposed to 
received noise levels that could cause Level A or Level B harassment 
for the proposed work at the Gustavus Ferry Terminal project. The 
analyses provided above represent between <0.01 and 51.8 percent of the 
populations of these stocks that could be affected by harassment, 
except for Minke whales since their population number is unknown. While 
the Northern resident and West Coast transient killer whale takes and 
percentages of stock affected appears high (48.2 percent and 51.8 
percent), in reality 126 Northern resident or West Coast transient 
killer whale individuals are not likely to be harassed. Instead, it is 
more likely that there will be multiple takes of a smaller number of 
individuals.
    NMFS believes that small numbers of the West coast transient killer 
whale

[[Page 17224]]

stock would be taken based on the limited region of exposure in 
comparison with the known distribution of the transient stock. The West 
coast transient stock ranges from Southeast Alaska to California, while 
the proposed project activity would be stationary. A notable percentage 
of West coast transient whales have never been observed in Southeast 
Alaska. Only 155 West coast transient killer whales have been 
identified as occurring in Southeast Alaska according to Dahlheim and 
White (2010). The same study identified three pods of transients, 
equivalent to 19 animals that remained almost exclusively in the 
southern part of Southeast Alaska (i.e. Clarence Strait and Sumner 
Strait). This information indicates that only a small subset of the 
entire West coast Transient stock would be at risk for take in the Icy 
Passage area because a sizable portion of the stock has either not been 
observed in Southeast Alaska or consistently remains far south of Icy 
Passage.
    The Northern resident killer whale stock are most commonly seen in 
the waters around the northern end of Vancouver Island, and in 
sheltered inlets along B.C.'s Central and North Coasts. They also range 
northward into Southeast Alaska in the winter months. Pile driving 
operations are not permitted under the IHA from December through 
February. It is also unlikely that such a large portion of Northern 
resident killer whales with ranges of this magnitude would be 
concentrated in and around Icy Passage.
    There is no current abundance estimate for minke whale since 
population data on this species is dated. However, the proposed take of 
42 minke whales may be considered small. A visual survey for cetaceans 
was conducted in the central-eastern Bering Sea in July-August 1999, 
and in the southeastern Bering Sea in 2000. Results of the surveys in 
1999 and 2000 provide provisional abundance estimates of 810 and 1,003 
minke whales in the central-eastern and southeastern Bering Sea, 
respectively (Moore et al., 2002). Additionally, line-transect surveys 
were conducted in shelf and nearshore waters in 2001-2003 from the 
Kenai Fjords in the Gulf of Alaska to the central Aleutian Islands. 
Minke whale abundance was estimated to be 1,233 for this area (Zerbini 
et al., 2006). However, these estimates cannot be used as an estimate 
of the entire Alaska stock of minke whales because only a portion of 
the stock's range was surveyed. (Allen and Anglis 2012). Clearly, 42 
authorized takes should be considered a small number, as it constitutes 
only 5.2 percent of the smallest abundance estimate generated during 
the surveys just described and each of these surveys represented only a 
portion of the minke whale range.
    Note that the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all 
species, with the exception of Northern resident and West coast 
transient killer whales, would be considered small relative to the 
relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred 
to a new individual--an extremely unlikely scenario.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, which are expected to reduce the number of marine mammals 
potentially affected by the proposed action, NMFS finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of 
the affected species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    The proposed Gustavus Ferry Terminal improvements project will 
occur near but not overlap the subsistence area used by the villages of 
Hoonah and Angoon (Wolfe et al., 2013). Harbor seals and Steller sea 
lions are available for subsistence harvest in this area (Wolfe et al., 
2013). There are no harvest quotas for other marine mammals found 
there. The project is likely to result only in short-term, temporary 
impacts to pinnipeds in the form of possible behavior changes, and is 
not expected to result in the serious injury or death of any marine 
mammal. Since all project activities will take place within the 
immediate vicinity of the Gustavus Ferry Terminal, the project will not 
have an adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for 
subsistence use at locations farther away. No disturbance or 
displacement of harbor seals or sea lions from traditional hunting 
areas by activities associated with the project is expected.
    Based on the description of the specified activity and the proposed 
mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will 
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ADOT&PF's 
proposed activities.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and analyzed the 
potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from the Gustavus 
Ferry Terminal construction project. A Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) was signed on December 20, 2016. A copy of the EA and FONSI is 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are two marine mammal species that are listed under the ESA 
with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area. The Mexico DPS 
of humpback whale is listed as threatened and the western DPS of 
Steller sea lion is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division 
issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance 
of an IHA to ADOT&PF under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS 
Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological Opinion concluded 
that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of Mexico DPS humpback whales or western DPS Steller sea 
lions, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify western DPS 
Steller sea lion critical habitat.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for reconstructing the existing 
Gustavus Ferry Terminal located in Gustavus, Alaska, provided the 
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
are incorporated.

    Dated: April 4, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-07031 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P