[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 128 (Thursday, July 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31400-31428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14157]



[[Page 31399]]

Vol. 82

Thursday,

No. 128

July 6, 2017

Part II





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking 
Marine Mammals Incidental to the Sand Point City Dock Replacement 
Project in Sand Point, Alaska; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 128 / Thursday, July 6, 2017 / 
Notices  

[[Page 31400]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF370


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Sand Point City Dock 
Replacement Project in Sand Point, Alaska

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the Alaska Department of 
Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) for an Incidental 
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, 
incidental to Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project in Sand Point, 
Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to ADOT&PF to 
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than August 
7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the applications should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should 
be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and 
electronic comments should be sent to [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted to the Internet at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm without 
change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) 
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do 
not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or 
protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of 
problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed 
above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth.
    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an 
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.
    The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, 
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine 
mammal.
    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).

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review the proposed action with respect to environmental 
consequences on the human environment. Accordingly, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA 
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This 
action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 
of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do 
not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant 
impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have 
not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this 
categorical exclusion.

Summary of Request

    On September 16, 2016, NMFS received an application from ADOT&PF 
for the taking of marine mammals incidental to replacing the city dock 
in Sand Point, Alaska. On April 11, 2017, ADOT&PF submitted a revised 
application that NMFS determined was adequate and complete. ADOT&PF 
proposes to conduct in-water activities that may incidentally take, by 
Level A and Level B harassment, marine mammals. Proposed activities 
included as part of the Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project with 
potential to affect marine mammals include impact hammer pile driving 
and vibratory pile driving and removal. This IHA would be valid from 
August 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
    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), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), gray 
whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and minke whale (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata).

Description of Specified Activities

Overview

    ADOT&PF proposes to construct a new dock in Sand Point, Alaska. The 
existing city dock was built in 1984 and is in need of replacement, as 
it is nearing the end of its operational life due to corrosion and 
wear. The dock receives barge service from Seattle weekly throughout 
the year. The dock also regularly handles processed seafood. Given the 
lack of road access to Sand Point, the city dock is an essential 
component of infrastructure providing

[[Page 31401]]

critical access between Sand Point and the Pacific Northwest region.
    Impact and vibratory driving of piles and vibratory pile removal is 
expected to take place over a total of approximately 32 working days 
within a 5-month window from August 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. 
However, due to the potential for unexpected delays, up to 40 working 
days may be required. ADOT&PF is asking for the proposed IHA to be 
valid for a period of one year. The new dock would be supported by 
approximately 52 round, 30-inch-diameter, 100-foot-long permanent steel 
pipe piles. Fender piles installed at the dock face would be 8 round, 
24-inch-diameter, 80-foot-long permanent steel pipe piles. The single 
mooring dolphin would consist of 3 round, 24-inch-diameter, 120-foot-
long permanent battered steel pipe piles. This equates to a total of 63 
permanent piles. Up to 90 temporary piles would be installed and 
removed during construction of the dock and would be either H-piles or 
pipe piles with a diameter of less than 24 inches.

Dates and Duration

    In-water pile driving and extraction activities are expected to 
take place over a total of approximately 32 working days within a 5-
month window from August 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. ADOT&PF has 
requested that the proposed IHA be valid for a period of one year in 
case there are delays. Table 1 illustrates the anticipated number of 
days required for installation and removal of various pile types. Pile 
driving and removal may occur for up to 4.5 hours per day.

  Table 1--Estimated Number of Days Required for Pile Installation and
                                 Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
                Activity                       piles       Days required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support pile installation...............              52              13
Temporary pile installation and removal.              90              15
Dolphin pile installation...............               3               2
Fender pile installation................               8               2
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Days..........................  ..............              32
    Total Days with 25 percent            ..............              40
     contingency........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specified Geographic Region

    The Sand Point city dock is located in the city of Sand Point, 
Alaska, on the northwest side of Popof Island, in the western Gulf of 
Alaska. Sand Point is part of the Aleutians East Borough and is located 
approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) south of the Alaska Peninsula. 
Popof Island is one of the Shumagin Islands in the western Gulf of 
Alaska and is approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) long, 8 kilometers 
(5 miles) wide, and covers 93.7 square kilometers (36.2 square miles). 
It is located immediately east of the much larger Unga Island, and 
Popof Strait separates the two islands. The City of Sand Point is the 
largest community in the Shumagin Islands. See Figure 1-1 in ADOT&PF's 
Application.
    The Sand Point city dock is located in Humboldt Harbor, on the 
southwest side of the city of Sand Point. The existing dock is located 
on the causeway of Sand Point's ``New Harbor'' at the end of Boat 
Harbor Road, and the proposed replacement dock is proposed to be 
located immediately adjacent to (southwest of) the existing city dock 
along the causeway, which also serves as the breakwater for the New 
Harbor. See Figure 1-2 in ADOT&PF's Application.

Detailed Description of Specified Activity

    The proposed action includes pile installation and removal of the 
new city dock and the deposition of shot rock fill adjacent to the 
existing causeway (See Figure 5-1 in Application). New shot rock fill 
would be placed on the seaward side of the existing causeway to support 
dock construction and create an additional upland area for safe 
passenger staging and maneuvering of equipment. Pile installation and 
removal activities will potentially result in take of marine mammals. 
There is no mapped high tide line at Sand Point, and, therefore, 
engineers will use Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) to determine the 
placement of fill. This fill would be placed above and below MHHW to 
increase the causeway's areal extent and would be stabilized through 
the use of new and salvaged armor rock protection. Approximately 38,600 
square feet of fill and 28,500 square feet of armor rock would be 
required for breakwater expansion. Shot rock fill deposition activities 
are not expected to generate underwater sound at levels that would 
result in Level A or Level B harassment. Therefore, this specific 
activity will not result in take of marine mammal and will not be 
discussed further.
    Following deposition of fill and prior to placement of armor rock, 
round steel piles would be installed to support the new city dock 
foundation and mooring dolphins. As noted previously, the proposed 
project will require installation of 30-inch and 24-inch, permanent 
steel piles. This equates to a total of 63 permanent piles as shown in 
Table 2 below. It is anticipated that an ICE 44B or APE 200-6 model 
vibratory driver or equivalent and a Delmag D62 diesel impact hammer or 
equivalent would be used to install the piles. Project design engineers 
anticipate an impact strike rate of approximately 40 strikes per 
minute, based on substrate density, pile types, and hammer type, which 
equates to approximately 1,000 strikes for each 30-inch dock support 
pile, 400 strikes for each dolphin pile, and 120 strikes for each 
fender pile.
    Permanent dock support piles would be installed using both 
vibratory and impact hammers; both methods of installation typically 
occur within the same day. Permanent piles are first installed with a 
vibratory hammer for approximately 45 minutes to insert the pile 
through the overburden sediment layer and into the bearing layer. The 
vibratory hammer is then replaced with the impact hammer, which is used 
to install the pile for the last 15 to 20 feet (approximately 25 
minutes). Up to four permanent piles would be installed per day, for a 
total of 180 minutes of vibratory and 100 minutes of impact 
installation per day. Installation of permanent piles would require 
about 13 days of effort (52 permanent piles/4 permanent piles per day = 
13 days).
    Installation of the eight fender piles is anticipated to occur over 
2 days (after installation of all dock support piles), at a production 
rate of four fender piles per day (8 fender piles/4 fender piles per 
day = 2 days). Each fender pile would require 30 minutes of vibratory 
installation and 3 minutes of impact installation, for a total of 120 
minutes of vibratory and 12 minutes of impact

[[Page 31402]]

installation each day. No temporary piles would be required for fender 
pile installation because they would be installed along the completed 
dock face.
    Installation of three 24-inch permanent battered pipe piles for the 
dolphin would also require the installation and removal of four 
temporary piles (either <24 inch diameter or H-piles) to support the 
template. Installation of the dolphin piles will occur over 2 days, 
with one or two dolphin piles installed per day for a total of 3 
dolphin piles. Thirty minutes of vibratory installation and 10 minutes 
of impact installation are anticipated per permanent dolphin pile, for 
a total of no more than 60 minutes of vibratory installation and 20 
minutes of impact installation per day. Installation and removal of the 
temporary piles for the dolphin are included in the calculations for 
temporary piles above.
    Two or more temporary piles would be used to support a template to 
facilitate installation of two to four permanent dock support piles. 
Template configuration, including the number of permanent piles that 
could be installed at once and the number of temporary piles required 
to support the template, would be determined by the contractor. Four 
additional temporary piles would support the template for the dolphin. 
In all, up to 90 temporary piles would be installed and removed during 
construction of the dock and dolphin. Temporary piles would be either 
H-piles or pipe piles with a diameter of less than 24 inches.
    Temporary piles would be installed and removed during construction 
of the dock by vibratory methods only. Removal and installation of the 
temporary piles that support the template typically occur within the 
same day, with additional time required for installation of the 
template structure, which would include welding, surveying the 
location, and other activities. Each temporary pile would be installed 
in approximately 15 minutes and removed in approximately 15 minutes. Up 
to six temporary piles would be installed and removed per day, for a 
total of up to 180 minutes of vibratory installation and removal per 
day. Installation of temporary piles, including those required to 
support construction of the dolphin, would require about 15 total days 
of effort (90 temporary piles/6 temporary piles per day = 15 days).
    Total driving time for the proposed project would consist of 
approximately 22 hours of impact driving and 85 hours of vibratory 
driving and removal.
    Following initial pile installation of permanent dock support 
piles, the mud accumulation on the inside of each pile would be augured 
out and the piles filled with concrete to provide additional moment 
capacity and corrosion resistance. An auger with a crane-mounted rotary 
head would be used for pile clearing. These activities are not 
anticipated to result in underwater sound levels that would meet Level 
A or Level B harassment criteria and, therefore, will not be discussed 
further.

                                        Table 2--Pile Details and Estimated Effort Required for Pile Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Estimated      Anticipated
                 Pile type                            Diameter               Number of     Maximum piles   Hours per day    minutes per   days of effort
                                                                               piles          per day                          pile             \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Vibratory Installation or Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent support pile....................  30''........................              52               4               3              45              13
Permanent dolphin pile....................  24''........................               3               2               1              30               2
Permanent fender pile.....................  24''........................               8               4               2              30               2
Installation, temporary support pile......  <24'' or H-pile.............              90               6             1.5              15              15
Removal, temporary support pile...........  <24'' or H-pile.............              90               6             1.5              15              15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Impact Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent support pile....................  30''........................              52               4           1.667              25              13
Permanent dolphin pile....................  24''........................               3               2            0.33              10               2
Permanent fender pile.....................  24''........................               8               4            0.20               3               2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vibratory and impact driving of each permanent pile will occur on the same day. Installation and removal of each temporary piles will occur on the
  same day.

    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in the document (Mitigation section and 
Monitoring and Reporting section).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    We have reviewed the applicants' species information--which 
summarizes available information regarding status and trends, 
distribution and habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and 
auditory capabilities of the potentially affected species--for accuracy 
and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the 
application, as well as to NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/). Additional general information about these 
species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on 
NMFS's Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
    Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Sand Point and summarizes information related to the population or 
stock, including potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For 
taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR, defined by the 
MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural 
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while 
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 
population, is considered in concert with known sources of ongoing 
anthropogenic mortality to assess the population-level effects of the 
anticipated mortality from a specific project (as described in NMFS's 
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross 
indicators of the status of the species and other threats. Species that 
could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas but are not 
expected to have reasonable potential to be harassed by pile driving 
and removal activities are described briefly but omitted from further 
analysis. These include extralimital species, which are species that do 
not normally occur in a given area but for which there are one

[[Page 31403]]

or more occurrence records that are considered beyond the normal range 
of the species. For status of species, we provide information regarding 
U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study area. NMFS's stock 
abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of 
individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that 
stock.
    The marine waters of the Shumagin Islands support many species of 
marine mammals, including pinnipeds and cetaceans; however, the number 
of species regularly occurring near the project area is limited (Table 
3). Steller sea lions are the most common marine mammals in the project 
area, and are part of the western Distinct Population Segment (wDPS), 
which is listed as endangered under the ESA. Humpback whales, including 
the ESA-listed Western North Pacific DPS (endangered) and Mexico DPS 
(threatened), as well as ESA-listed fin whales (endangered), may occur 
in the project area, but far less frequently and in lower abundance 
than Steller sea lions. Harbor seals and harbor porpoises may be 
observed in the project area. Gray whales, minke whales, killer whales, 
and Dall's porpoises also have the potential to occur in or near the 
project area, although in limited numbers.
    North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) are very rare in 
general and extremely unlikely to occur within the project area. Other 
animals whose range overlaps with the project area include the northern 
fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata), 
spotted seal (Phoca largha), and Pacific white-sided dolphin 
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens). However, occurrences of these species 
have not been reported locally and take is not anticipated or proposed. 
The ranges of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) and Cuvier's beaked 
whales (Ziphius cavirostris) include the Shumagin Islands. However, 
these species generally inhabit deep waters and would be unlikely to 
occur in the relatively shallow waters of Popof Strait. Therefore, take 
is not proposed for either of these species. The species listed in this 
paragraph will not be discussed further.
    All values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at 
the time of publication and are available in the 2015 SARs (Muto et 
al., 2016) and draft 2016 SARs (Muto et al., 2016b) available online 
at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).

                                         Table 3--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Stock abundance
                                                        ESA/MMPA status;    (CV, Nmin, most                                                Relative
             Species                     Stock          strategic  (Y/N)   recent  abundance        PBR \3\        Annual  M/SI \4\     occurrence near
                                                              \1\             survey) \2\                                                 Sand Point
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dall's porpoise.................  Alaska.............  -; N               83,400 (0.097; n/   Undet.............  38................  Rare.
                                                                           a; 1993).
Harbor porpoise.................  Gulf of Alaska.....  -; Y               25,987 (0.214; n/   Undet.............  72................  Common.
                                                                           a; 1998).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale....................  Eastern North        -; N               2,347 (n/a; 2,347;  24................  1.................  Uncommon.
                                   Pacific Alaska                          2012).
                                   Resident.
                                  Eastern North        -; N               587 (n/a; 587;      5.9...............  1.................  Uncommon.
                                   Pacific Gulf of                         2012).
                                   AK, Aleutian
                                   Islands, and
                                   Bering Sea
                                   Transient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Family Balaenopteridae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale..................  Central North        n/a Y              10,103 (0.300;      83................  24................  Uncommon.
                                   Pacific.                                7,890; 2006).
                                  Western North        n/a\5\; Y          1,107 (0.300; 865;  3.................  2.6...............  Uncommon.
                                   Pacific.                                2006).
Fin whale.......................  Northeast Pacific..  E/D; Y             1,368 (n/a, 1,036;  2.1...............  0.6...............  Rare.
                                                                           2010).
Minke whale.....................  Alaska.............  -; N               ..................  ..................  0.................  Rare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale......................  Eastern North        -; N               20,990 (0.05;       624...............  132...............  Rare.
                                   Pacific.                                20,125; 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion................  wDPS...............  E/D; S             50,983 (n/a;        306...............  236...............  Very common.
                                                                           50,983; 2015).

[[Page 31404]]

 
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.....................  (Cook Inlet/         -; N               27,386 (n/a;        770...............  234...............  Occasional.
                                   Shelikof Strait.                        25,651, 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks of
  pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge
  of the specie's (or similar species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the
  minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\3\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
  marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\5\ The newly defined DPSs do not currently align with the stocks defined under the MMPA.

Cetaceans

Dall's Porpoise
    Dall's porpoises are found throughout the North Pacific, from 
southern Japan to southern California north to the Bering Sea. All 
Dall's porpoises found in Alaska are members of the Alaska stock. This 
species can be found in offshore, inshore, and nearshore habitat, but 
prefer waters more than 180 meters (600 feet) deep (Jefferson 2009).
    Dall's porpoises, like all marine mammals, are protected under the 
MMPA, but they are not listed under the ESA. Insufficient data are 
available to estimate current population trends, but the species is 
considered reasonably abundant. The current population estimate for the 
species is 1.2 million, and the Alaska stock was last estimated at 
83,400 individuals in 1993 (Muto et al., 2016a).
    There currently is no information on the presence or abundance of 
Dall's porpoises in the Shumagin Islands. No sightings of Dall's 
porpoises have been documented in Humboldt Harbor and they are not 
expected to occur there, although they may occur in deeper waters 
farther offshore (HDR 2017).
    Dall's porpoises generally occur in groups of 2 to 20 individuals, 
but have also been recorded in groups numbering in the hundreds. In 
Alaska, the average group size ranges from 2.7 to 3.7 individuals (Wade 
et al., 2003). They are commonly observed bowriding vessels or large 
cetaceans. Common prey includes a variety of small schooling fishes 
(such as herrings, anchovies, mackerels, and sauries) and cephalopods. 
Dall's porpoises may migrate between inshore and offshore areas, make 
latitudinal movements, or make short seasonal migrations, but these 
movements are generally not consistent (Jefferson 2009).
Harbor Porpoise
    In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the harbor porpoise ranges from 
Point Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and down the west coast of North 
America to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoises frequent 
primarily coastal waters in the Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska 
(Dahlheim et al., 2000), and occur most frequently in waters less than 
100 meters (328 feet) deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). The Gulf of Alaska 
stock ranges from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass (Muto et al., 2016a).
    In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three 
stocks, based primarily on geography: the Bering Sea stock, the 
Southeast Alaska stock, and the Gulf of Alaska stock. In areas outside 
Alaska, studies have shown that stock structure is more finely scaled 
than is reflected in the Alaska Stock Assessment Reports. However, no 
data are yet available to define stock structure for harbor porpoises 
on a finer scale in Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2014). Only the Gulf of 
Alaska stock is considered in this application because the other stocks 
occur outside the geographic area under consideration.
    Harbor porpoises are neither designated as depleted under the MMPA 
nor listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Because the most 
recent abundance estimate is more than eight years old and information 
on incidental harbor porpoise mortality in commercial fisheries is not 
well understood, the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor porpoises is 
classified as strategic. Population trends and status of this stock 
relative to optimum sustainable population size are currently unknown.
    The number of harbor porpoises in the Gulf of Alaska stock was 
assessed in 1998 at 31,046. The current minimum population estimate for 
harbor porpoises in the Gulf of Alaska, calculated using the potential 
biological removal guidelines, is 25,987 individuals (Muto et al., 
2016b). No reliable information is available to determine trends in 
abundance.
    Survey data for the Shumagin Islands are not available. Anecdotal 
observations indicate that harbor porpoises are uncommon in Humboldt 
Harbor proper but may occur in nearby waters (HDR 2017).
    Harbor porpoises forage in waters less than 200 meters (656 feet) 
to bottom depth on small pelagic schooling fish such as herring, cod, 
pollock, octopus, smelt, and bottom-dwelling fish, occasionally feeding 
on squid and crustaceans (Bj[oslash]rge and Tolley 2009; Wynne et al., 
2011).
Killer Whale
    Killer whales have been observed in all the world's oceans, but the 
highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found at 
high latitudes (NMFS 2016a). Killer whales occur along the entire 
Alaska coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and 
along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS 
2016a). Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, 
movements, and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now 
recognized within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, seven of 
which occur in Alaska: (1) The Alaska resident stock; (2) the Northern 
resident

[[Page 31405]]

stock; (3) the Southern resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska, 
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock; (5) the AT1 transient 
stock; (6) the West Coast transient stock, occurring from California 
through southeastern Alaska; and (7) the Offshore stock (Muto et al., 
2016a). Only the Alaska resident stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock are considered in this 
application because other stocks occur outside the geographic area 
under consideration. Neither of these stocks of killer whales is 
designated as depleted or strategic under the MMPA or listed as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA.
    The Alaska resident stock occurs from southeastern Alaska to the 
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The transient stock occurs primarily 
from Prince William Sound through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.
    The abundance of the Alaska resident stock of killer whales is 
currently estimated at 2,347 individuals, and the Gulf of Alaska, 
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock is estimated at 587 
individuals. The Gulf of Alaska component of the transient stock is 
estimated to include 136 of the 587 individuals (Muto et al., 2016a). 
The abundance of the Alaska resident stock is likely underestimated 
because researchers continue to encounter new whales in the Gulf of 
Alaska and western Alaska waters. At present, reliable data on trends 
in population abundance for both stocks are unavailable.
    Line transect surveys conducted in the Shumagin Islands between 
2001 and 2003 did not record any resident killer whales, but did record 
a relatively high abundance of transient killer whales (Zerbini et al., 
2007). The population trend of the transient stock of killer whales in 
Alaska has remained stable since the 1980s (Muto et al., 2016b). 
Anecdotal observations indicate that killer whales are not often seen 
in the vicinity of Sand Point, including Popof Strait (HDR 2017).
    Distinct ecotypes of killer whales include transients that hunt and 
feed primarily on marine mammals and residents that forage primarily on 
fish. Transient killer whales feed primarily on harbor seals, Dall's 
porpoises, harbor porpoises, and sea lions. Resident killer whale 
populations in the eastern North Pacific feed mainly on salmonids, 
showing a strong preference for Chinook salmon (Muto et al., 2016b).
    Transient whales are often found in long-term stable social units 
(pods) of fewer than 10 whales, which are generally smaller than 
resident social groups. Resident-type killer whales occur in larger 
pods of whales that are seen in association with one another more than 
50 percent of the time (Muto et al., 2016b).
Humpback Whale
    There are five stocks of humpback whales defined under the MMPA, 
two of which occur in Alaska: The Central North Pacific Stock, which 
consists of winter/spring populations in the Hawaiian Islands which 
migrate primarily to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the 
Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; and the Western 
North Pacific stock, which consists of winter/spring populations off 
Asia which migrate primarily to Russia and the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands (Muto et al., 2016b). The Western North Pacific stock is found 
in coastal and inland waters around the Pacific Rim from Point 
Conception, California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, 
and west along the Aleutian Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into 
the Sea of Okhotsk and north of the Bering Strait, which are historical 
feeding grounds (Muto et al., 2016b). Information from a variety of 
sources indicates that humpback whales from the Western and Central 
North Pacific stocks mix to a limited extent on summer feeding grounds 
ranging from British Columbia through the central Gulf of Alaska and up 
to the Bering Sea (Muto et al., 2016).
    Humpback whales worldwide were designated as ``endangered'' under 
the Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1970, and were listed under 
the ESA from its inception in 1973 until 2016. On September 8, 2016, 
NMFS published a final decision which changed the status of humpback 
whales under the ESA (81 FR 62259), effective October 11, 2016. The 
decision recognized the existence of 14 DPSs based on distinct breeding 
areas in tropical and temperate waters. Five of the 14 DPSs were 
classified under the ESA (4 endangered and 1 threatened), while the 
other 9 DPSs were delisted. Humpback whales found in the Shumagin 
Islands are predominantly members of the Hawaii DPS, which are not 
listed under the ESA. However, based on a comprehensive photo-
identification study, members of both the Western North Pacific DPS 
(ESA-listed as endangered) and Mexico DPS (ESA-listed as threatened) 
are known to occur in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Members 
of different DPSs are known to intermix on feeding grounds; therefore, 
all waters off the coast of Alaska should be considered to have ESA-
listed humpback whales. According to Wade et al. (2016), there is a 0.5 
percent (CV [coefficient of variation]=0.001) probability that a 
humpback whale observed in the Gulf of Alaska is from the Western North 
Pacific DPS. The probability of a humpback whale being from the Mexico 
DPS is 10.5 percent (CV=0.16). The remaining 89 percent (CV=0.01) of 
individuals in the Gulf of Alaska are likely members of the Hawaii DPS 
(Wade et al., 2016).
    The current abundance estimate for humpback whales in the Pacific 
Ocean is approximately 16,132 individuals. The Hawaii DPS is the 
largest stock, with approximately 11,398 individuals (95 percent 
confidence interval [CI]: 10,503-12,370), followed by the Mexico DPS 
(3,264 individuals [95 percent CI: 2,912-3,659]) and the Western North 
Pacific DPS (1,059 individuals [95 percent CI: 898-1,249]). Summer 
abundance of humpback whales in the Gulf of Alaska, from all DPSs, is 
estimated at 2,089 individuals (95 percent CI: 1,755-2,487; Wade et 
al., 2016). Critical habitat has not been designated for any humpback 
whale DPS.
    Surveys from 2001 to 2004 estimated humpback whale abundance in the 
Shumagin Islands at between 410 and 593 individuals during the summer 
feeding season (July-August; Witteveen et al., 2004; Zerbini et al., 
2006). Annual vessel-based, photo-identification surveys in the 
Shumagin Islands from 1999 to 2015 identified 654 unique individual 
humpback whales between June and September (Witteveen and Wynne 2016). 
Humpback whale abundance in the Shumagin Islands increased 6 percent 
per year between 1987 and 2003 (Zerbini et al., 2006). Humpback whales 
are occasionally observed in Popof Strait between Popof Island and Unga 
Island (HDR 2017) and are known to feed in the waters west of the 
airport (HDR 2017). They are unlikely to occur in the shallow waters of 
Humboldt Harbor proper (HDR 2017) but may occur in Popof Strait in 
waters ensonified by pile driving and removal activities. Humpbacks are 
found in the Shumagin Islands from April or May through October or 
November, and peak feeding activity occurs between June and early 
September.
    Large aggregations of humpback whales spend the summer and fall in 
the nearshore areas of the Alaska Peninsula, Gulf of Alaska, and 
Aleutian Islands. The waters of the western Gulf of Alaska support 
feeding populations of humpback whales (HDR 2017). The Shumagin Islands 
are considered a biologically important area for feeding

[[Page 31406]]

humpback whales in July and August (Ferguson et al., 2015).
Fin Whale
    Four stocks of fin whales occur in U.S. waters: (1) Alaska 
(Northeast Pacific), (2) California/Washington/Oregon, (3) Hawaii, and 
(4) western North Atlantic (Aguilar 2009; Muto et al., 2016). Fin 
whales in the Shumagin Islands are from the Alaska (Northeast Pacific) 
stock (Muto et al., 2016z).
    Fin whales were designated as ``endangered'' under the Endangered 
Species Conservation Act in 1970, and have been listed under the ESA 
since its inception in 1973. There are no reliable estimates of current 
or historic abundance for the entire North Pacific population of fin 
whales. Surveys in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska 
estimated 5,700 whales. The population in this region is thought to be 
increasing at approximately 3.6 percent per year, but there is a high 
degree of variability in this estimate (Zerbini et al., 2006). Critical 
habitat has not been designated for the fin whale.
    Vessel-based line-transect surveys of coastal waters between 
Resurrection Bay and the central Aleutian Islands were completed in 
July and August from 2001 to 2003. Large concentrations of fin whales 
were found in the Semidi Islands, located midway between the Shumagin 
Islands and Kodiak Island just south of the Alaska Peninsula. The 
abundance of fin whales in the Shumagin Islands ranged from a low 
estimate of 604 in 2003 to a high estimate of 1,113 in 2002. Fin whales 
are uncommon in Humboldt Harbor or Popof Strait (HDR 2017).
    Fin whales are found in deep offshore waters as well as in shallow 
nearshore areas. Their migratory movements are complex and their 
abundance can fluctuate seasonally. Fin whales often congregate in 
groups of two to seven whales or in larger groups of other whale 
species, including humpback and minke whales (Muto et al., 2016a). Fin 
whales feed on a wide variety of organisms and their diet may vary with 
season and locality.
Gray Whale
    Gray whales were listed under the Endangered Species Conservation 
Act in 1970 and under the ESA since its inception in 1973. However, in 
1994, the eastern North Pacific (ENP) stock of gray whales was delisted 
from the ESA, while the western North Pacific (WNP) stock remains 
endangered. A limited number of WNP gray whales have recently been 
observed off the west coast of North America in winter. However, most 
gray whales found in Alaska are part of the ENP stock. The most recent 
stock assessment in 2014 estimated 20,990 individuals in the ENP stock. 
The WNP stock population estimate is 135 individuals (Carretta et al., 
2016). ENP gray whales spend summers feeding in the Chukchi and Bering 
seas, and their breeding and calving grounds are located off Baja 
California, Mexico (Caretta et al., 2016). Due to the very large range 
and small population size of the WNP stock, occurrences of these 
animals in the project area are highly unlikely. Therefore, take is not 
anticipated or proposed and WNP whales will not be discussed further.
    Gray whales pass through the Shumagin Islands from March through 
May on their northward migration to the Bering and Chukchi seas. Most 
individuals pass through Unimak Pass, which is located just west of the 
Shumagin Islands. The Shumagin Islands are considered a biologically 
important area for the gray whale due to this consistent migration 
route. Gray whales pass through again from November through January on 
their southern migration (NOAA 2016; Caretta et al., 2016).
    Gray whales are rarely observed near Sand Point or in Humboldt 
Harbor. Approximately 10 years ago, a single juvenile gray whale was 
observed in Humboldt Harbor, but this individual was thought to be 
separated from its family group (HDR 2017). During migration, however, 
they are known to pass through Unga Strait, to the north of the project 
area, or the Gorman and West Nagai straits south of the project area 
(NOAA 2016).
    Gray whales of the eastern North Pacific stock breed and calve in 
protected bays and estuaries of Baja California, Mexico. Large 
congregations form there in January and February. Between February and 
May gray whales undertake long migrations to the Bering and Chukchi 
seas where they disperse across the feeding grounds. Gray whales feed 
on a wide variety of benthic organisms as well as planktonic and 
nektonic organisms. In recent years, shifts in sub-arctic climatic 
conditions have reduced the productivity of benthic communities and 
have resulted in a shift in the food supply. In response, gray whales 
have shifted their feeding strategies and focus almost exclusively on 
the Chukchi Sea. Secondary feeding areas include the Bering Sea, 
Beaufort Sea, and some individuals have been reported along the west 
coast of North America as far south as California. The southerly 
migration occurs from October through January (Jones and Swartz 2009; 
Muto et al., 2016).
Minke Whale
    Minke whales are protected under the MMPA, but they are not listed 
under the ESA. The population status of minke whales is considered 
stable throughout most of their range. The International Whaling 
Commission has identified three stocks in the North Pacific: One near 
the Sea of Japan, a second in the rest of the western Pacific (west of 
180[deg] W.), and a third, less concentrated stock found throughout the 
eastern Pacific. NOAA further splits this third stock between Alaskan 
whales and resident whales of California, Oregon, and Washington (Muto 
et al., 2016). There are no population estimates for minke whales in 
Alaska; however, nearshore aerial surveys of the western Gulf of Alaska 
took place between 2001 and 2003. These surveys estimated the minke 
whale population in that area at approximately 1,233 individuals 
(Zerbini et al., 2006).
    Minke whales are common in the Aleutian Islands and north through 
the Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, but are relatively uncommon in the 
Shumagin Islands and Gulf of Alaska (Muto et al., 2016, Zerbini et al., 
2006). Sightings did occur northwest of Unga Island during surveys in 
2001, and northeast of Popof Island during 2002 and 2003 (Zerbini et 
al., 2006).
    In Alaska, the minke whale diet primarily consists of euphausiids 
and walleye pollock. Minke whales are generally found in shallow, 
coastal waters within 200 meters of shore (Zerbini et al., 2006) and 
are almost always solitary or in small groups of 2 to 3. In Alaska, 
seasonal movements are associated with feeding areas that are generally 
located at the edge of the pack ice.

Pinnipeds

Steller Sea Lions
    Steller sea lions are found throughout the northern Pacific Ocean, 
including coastal and inland waters from Russia (Kuril Islands and the 
Sea of Okhotsk), east to Alaska, and south to central California 
(A[ntilde]o Nuevo Island). Steller sea lions were listed as threatened 
range-wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Steller 
sea lions were subsequently partitioned into the western and eastern 
DPSs in 1997 (Allen and Angliss 2010). The eastern DPS remained 
classified as threatened (62 FR 24345) until it was delisted in 
November 2013. The wDPS (those individuals west of 144[deg] W. 
longitude or Cape Suckling, Alaska) was upgraded to

[[Page 31407]]

endangered status following separation of the DPSs, and it remains 
endangered today. Only the wDPS is considered in this application 
because the range of the eastern DPS is not known to include the 
project area.
    From 2000-2004, non-pup Steller sea lion counts at trend sites in 
the wDPS increased 11 percent. These counts suggested the first region-
wide increases for the wDPS since standardized surveys began in the 
1970s, and were attributed to increased survey efforts in all regions 
except the western Aleutian Islands. Annual surveys of haulouts and 
rookeries in the western Gulf of Alaska since 1985 indicate a 16 
percent increase in non-pup counts and 38 percent reduction in pup 
counts over the 30-year period. However, since 2003, these counts have 
increased by 58 percent for non-pups and 53 percent for pups (Fritz et 
al., 2016a, 2016b). Annual increases for the western Gulf of Alaska 
range between 3.4 and 3.8 percent for non-pup and pup counts since the 
early 2000s (Muto et al., 2016a; Fritz et al., 2016a, 2016b).
    The wDPS breeds on rookeries in Alaska from Prince William Sound 
west through the Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions use 38 rookeries 
and hundreds of haulouts within their range in western Alaska (Allen 
and Angliss 2013). Steller sea lions are not known to migrate, but 
individuals may disperse widely outside the breeding season (late May 
to early July). At sea, Steller sea lions are commonly found from 
nearshore habitats to the continental shelf and slope.
    On August 27, 1993, NMFS published a final rule designating 
critical habitat for the Steller sea lion. In Alaska, designated 
critical habitat includes all major Steller sea lion rookeries and 
major haulouts identified in the listing notice (58 FR 45269) and 
associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones. Critical habitat 
includes a terrestrial zone that extends 0.9 kilometer (3,000 feet) 
landward from each major rookery and major haulout, and an air zone 
that extends 0.9 kilometer (3,000 feet) above the terrestrial zone of 
each major rookery and major haulout. For each major rookery and major 
haulout located west of 144[deg] W. longitude (i.e., the project area), 
critical habitat includes an aquatic zone (or buffer) that extends 37 
kilometers (20 nautical miles) seaward in all directions. Critical 
habitat also includes three large offshore foraging areas: The Shelikof 
Strait area, the Bogoslof area, and the Seguam Pass area (58 FR 45269).
    The project is located within the aquatic zones (i.e., designated 
critical habitat) of two designated major haulouts: Sea Lion Rocks 
(Shumagins) and The Whaleback. The ensonified Level B harassment zone 
related to implementation of the proposed project, described later in 
the ``Estimated Take'' section, overlaps with the designated aquatic 
zone or buffer of a third designated major haulout on Jude Island. No 
terrestrial or in-air critical habitat of any major haulout overlaps 
with the project area. The major haulout at Sea Lion Rocks (Shumagins) 
is located approximately 28 kilometers (15.1 nautical miles) south of 
the project site. The major haulout at The Whaleback is located 
approximately 27.4 kilometers (14.8 nautical miles) east of Sand Point. 
The major haulout at Jude Island is located 39.6 kilometers (21.4 
nautical miles) west of Sand Point.
    The project area does not overlap with the aquatic zone of any 
major rookery, nor does it overlap with the three designated offshore 
foraging areas. The closest designated major rookery is on the east 
side of Atkins Island, which is approximately 83.3 kilometers (45 
nautical miles) southeast of Sand Point. Another major rookery is 
located about 85.2 kilometers (46 nautical miles) south of Sand Point 
on the southwest point of Chernabura Island (Fritz et al., 2016c).
    Steller sea lions are the most obvious and abundant marine mammal 
in the project area, and their abundance is highly correlated with 
seasonal fishing activity. Sea lions tend to congregate at the seafood 
processing facility (Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4 in the application) 
during the walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogramma) fishing seasons (HDR 
2017). There are four official pollock fishing seasons: The ``A'' 
season starts on January 20, the ``B'' season starts on March 10, the 
``C'' season starts on August 25, and the ``D'' season starts on 
October 1 (HDR 2017). The end dates of these seasons are variable. 
Outside of the pollock seasons, there are few sea lions in the harbor. 
It is suspected that sea lions are feeding on salmon during the summer 
salmon runs, and are not present in high numbers around Sand Point (HDR 
2017).
    The closest Steller sea lion haulout to the project area is located 
on Egg Island, which is approximately 6 kilometers (3.7 nautical miles) 
from the project. Recent counts have not recorded any Steller sea lions 
at this haulout (Fritz et al., 2016a, 2016b; HDR 2017), however, local 
anecdotal reports suggest that the haulout does experience some use 
(HDR). Researchers have noted as many as 10 sea lions at this haulout 
in May, although these observations are not part of systematic counts 
(HDR 2017). The closest rookery is located on Jude Island, 
approximately 38.9 kilometers (21 nautical miles) west of Sand Point, 
and had average annual counts of 214 sea lion pups from 2009-2014 
(Fritz et al., 2016a). Note that these locations are not considered 
major haulouts.
    Sea lions have become accustomed to depredating fishing gear and 
raiding fishing vessels during fishing and offloading near the project 
area and they follow potential sources of food in and around the 
Humboldt Harbor, waiting for opportunities to feed. The number of sea 
lions in the waters near Sand Point varies depending on the season and 
presence of commercial fishing vessels unloading their catch at the 
seafood processing facility. The Sand Point harbormaster and seafood 
processing plant foreman are the best available sources for information 
on sea lion abundance at Sand Point. Information from these individuals 
suggests that the highest numbers of sea lions are present during the 
pollock fishing seasons. Average counts at the seafood processing 
facility range from 4 to 12, but can occasionally reach as many as 20 
sea lions. There are no notable differences in abundance between the 
four pollock seasons. Outside of the pollock seasons, sea lions may be 
present, but in small numbers (i.e., 1 or 2 individuals). Sea lions 
also regularly visit other parts of Humboldt Harbor in search of 
opportunistic food sources, including the small boat harbor, the New 
Harbor, and City Dock (HDR 2017).
Harbor Seals
    Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts 
of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast 
Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the 
Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the 
Pribilof Islands. In 2010, harbor seals in Alaska were partitioned into 
12 separate stocks based largely on genetic structure (Allen and 
Angliss 2010). Harbor seals in the Shumagin Islands are members of the 
Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait stock. Distribution of the Cook Inlet/
Shelikof Strait stock extends from the southwest shore of Unimak Island 
east along the southern coast of the Alaska Peninsula to Elizabeth 
Island off the southwest shore of the Kenai Peninsula, including Cook 
Inlet, Knik Arm, and Turnagain Arm (Muto et al., 2016a).
    Harbor seals are not designated as depleted under the MMPA and are 
not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The current 
statewide abundance estimate for Alaskan harbor seals is 205,090 based 
on aerial survey data collected during 1998-2011. The

[[Page 31408]]

2007 through 2011 abundance estimate for the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock 
is 27,386 (Muto et al., 2016a).
    Survey data by London et al. (2015) for the Shumagin Islands in 
2011 indicate that harbor seals used two haulouts in the project area 
during that year. One is located on the south shore of Popof Island 
south of the airport at a distance of approximately 10 km (5.5 nautical 
miles) from Humboldt Harbor. The other is on the northeast shore of 
Unga Island approximately 23 km (12 nautical miles) distant from the 
project site. No known haulouts overlap within the Level B underwater 
harassment zones estimated for the project. Aerial haulout surveys 
conducted by London et al. (2015) indicated that 15 harbor seals occupy 
the survey unit along the south coast of Popof Island, including the 
area around Sand Point. Abundance estimates at other survey units in 
the area ranged from zero on the north shore of Popof Island to 100 
along the northeast coast of Unga Island. This information comes from a 
single year of surveys, and standard errors on these estimates are very 
high; therefore, confidence in these estimates is low (London et al., 
2015). Anecdotal observations indicate that harbor seals are uncommon 
in Humboldt Harbor proper, but are occasionally observed near the 
airport (HDR 2017).
    Harbor seals are opportunistic feeders that forage in marine, 
estuarine, and, occasionally, freshwater habitat, adjusting their 
foraging behavior to take advantage of prey that is locally and 
seasonally abundant (Payne and Selzer 1989). Depending on prey 
availability, research has demonstrated that harbor seals conduct both 
shallow and deep dives during hunting (Tollit et al., 1997). Harbor 
seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice (Muto 
et al., 2016a). They are non-migratory; their local movements are 
associated with tides, weather, season, food availability, and 
reproduction, as well as sex and age class (Muto et al., 2016a; Allen 
and Angliss 2014; Boveng et al., 2012; Lowry et al., 2001; Swain et 
al., 1996).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity (e.g. sound produced by pile 
driving and removal) may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The 
``Estimated Take'' section later in this document will include a 
quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to 
be taken by this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis and 
Determination'' section will consider the content of this section, the 
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed 
Mitigation'' section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts 
of pile driving and removal activities on the reproductive success or 
survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are 
likely affect marine mammal species or stocks.

Description of Sound Sources

    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the 
distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have 
longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate 
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of 
the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically 
measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a 
measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a 
constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a 
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; 
therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large 
changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels 
(SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the 
context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa). One 
pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted 
over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the 
sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 
[mu]Pa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's 
position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are 
referenced to a pressure of 1 [mu]Pa and all airborne sound levels in 
this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 [mu]Pa.
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the 
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square 
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and 
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so 
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels 
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the 
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral 
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed 
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the 
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all 
directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a 
pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The 
compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are 
detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound 
receptors such as hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient 
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a 
single source or point (Richardson et al.,1995), and the sound level of 
a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by 
known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., 
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds 
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic 
sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of 
sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following 
(Richardson et al., 1995):
     Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and 
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of 
naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 
kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase 
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes 
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 
during heavy surf conditions.
     Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the 
water surface can become an important component of total noise at 
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 
times.
     Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to 
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band 
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 
kHz.
     Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human 
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), 
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic 
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean

[[Page 31409]]

acoustic studies. Shipping noise typically dominates the total ambient 
noise for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the 
frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher 
frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly (Richardson 
et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than 
the activity of interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is sometimes termed 
background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate 
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, 
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the 
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local 
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine 
mammals.
    In-water construction activities associated with the project would 
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile 
extraction. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of 
two general sound types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the 
following paragraphs). The distinction between these two sound types is 
important because they have differing potential to cause physical 
effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 
Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-
depth discussion of these concepts.
    Pulsed sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and 
occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed 
sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient 
pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period 
that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and 
minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce 
physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
    Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or 
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; 
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals 
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., 
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced 
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or 
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as 
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received 
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant 
environment.
    Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a 
pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact 
hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a 
potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). 
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the 
weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers 
produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 
180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs 
generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et 
al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity 
of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of 
time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, 
and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately 
assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the 
frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate 
that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities 
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and 
Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended 
that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on 
measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available 
behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential 
techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct 
measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for 
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 
described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing 
groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the 
approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, 
with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where 
the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower 
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and 
the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these 
frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with 
the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every 
species within that group) (NMFS 2016):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best 
hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to 
less than 100 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and 
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members 
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data 
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
     Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, 
with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best 
hearing between 2-48 kHz.
    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013).
    As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal 
species (seven cetaceans and two pinnipeds) may occur in the project 
area. Of the cetaceans, four are classified as a low-frequency cetacean 
(i.e., humpback whale, gray whale, fin whale, minke

[[Page 31410]]

whale), one is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., killer 
whale), and two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., 
harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). 
Additionally, harbor seals are classified as members of the phocid 
pinnipeds in water functional hearing group while Steller sea lions are 
grouped under the Otariid pinnipeds in water functional hearing group. 
A species' functional hearing group is a consideration when we analyze 
the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals. Marine mammal 
hearing groups were also used in the establishment of marine mammal 
auditory weighting functions in the new acoustic guidance.

Acoustic Impacts

    Please refer to the information given previously (Description of 
Sound Sources) regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and 
metrics used in this document. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range 
of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable 
impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe 
responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, 
behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of 
underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in 
one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral 
disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The degree of 
effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received 
level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In 
general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can 
longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of 
hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's 
hearing range. In this section, we first describe specific 
manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific 
to the proposed construction activities in the next section.
    Permanent Threshold Shift--Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity 
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can 
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing 
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt 
et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS), 
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, 
or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would 
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound exposure that 
leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be 
total or partial deafness, while in most cases the animal has an 
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 
1985).
    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue 
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other 
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of 
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical 
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to 
constitute auditory injury.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals--PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal 
(Kastak et al., 2008)--but are assumed to be similar to those in humans 
and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels 
at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates 
PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild 
TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et 
al., 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 
assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as 
impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at 
least six dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and 
PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher 
than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 
2007).
    Temporary threshold shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing 
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). 
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must 
be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine 
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong 
TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after 
exposure to the sound ends.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to 
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate 
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency 
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there 
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin [Tursiops trancatus], beluga whale [Delphinapterus 
leucas], harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise [Neophocoena 
asiaeorientalis]) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant 
seal [Mirounga angustirostris], harbor seal, and California sea lion 
[Zalophus californianus]) exposed to a limited number of sound sources 
(i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 
(e.g., Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastak et al., 
2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, harbor seals 
(Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a) and harbor porpoises 
(Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have a lower TTS onset 
than other measured pinniped or cetacean species. Additionally, the 
existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of 
individuals within these species. There are no data available on noise-
induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in 
marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 
please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), and 
Finneran (2015).
    Behavioral effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of 
effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous 
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or 
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment 
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly 
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous 
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, 
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., 
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; 
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not 
only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on 
previous

[[Page 31411]]

experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors 
(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics 
associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or 
stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). Please see 
Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies 
involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic 
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance 
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and 
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 
2003). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which 
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 
al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). Variations in dive behavior may 
reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., 
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact 
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure 
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the 
type and magnitude of the response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005b, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward 
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic 
noise (Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, animals may cease sound 
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory 
paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area 
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to 
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species 
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does 
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann 
et al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of 
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine 
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight 
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from 
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the 
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine

[[Page 31412]]

mammal strandings (Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be 
noted that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke 
flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or 
in groups may influence the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most 
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral 
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses 
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; 
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations 
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
    Auditory masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or 
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or 
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for 
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, 
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking 
occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another 
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher 
intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping 
shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, 
sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to 
mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of 
both the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise 
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and 
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, 
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, 
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation 
conditions.
    Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing 
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the 
coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment 
when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to 
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from 
masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking 
(without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological 
function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a 
potential behavioral effect.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation 
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection 
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. 
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be 
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g., 
Clark et al., 2009)

[[Page 31413]]

and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their 
vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; 
Parks et al., 2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). 
Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come 
from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude 
modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors 
(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested directly in captive 
species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations it must be either 
modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. There are 
few studies addressing real-world masking sounds likely to be 
experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et al., 
2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
    At the seafood processing plant north of the project site, fish are 
offloaded into the processing plant from the vessels' holds, and 
several vessels may raft up simultaneously during peak fishing seasons. 
A small boat harbor is located northeast of the project site and 
services a number of small vessels. High levels of vessel traffic are 
known to elevate background levels of noise in the marine environment. 
For example, continuous sounds for tugs pulling barges have been 
reported to range from 145 to 166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms at 1 meter from 
the source (Miles et al., 1987; Richardson et al., 1995; Simmonds et 
al., 2004). Ambient underwater noise levels in the vicinity of the 
project site are unknown but could potentially mask some sounds of pile 
installation and pile extraction.
    Non-auditory physiological effects--Non-auditory physiological 
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals 
exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological 
effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ 
or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies 
examining such effects are limited. In general, little is known about 
the potential for pile driving to cause auditory impairment or other 
physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such 
effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short 
distances from the sound source, where SLs are much higher, and to 
activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do 
not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-
auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any 
meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine 
mammals that might be affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show 
behavioral avoidance of pile driving, including some odontocetes and 
some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or 
non-auditory physical effects.

Underwater Acoustic Effects From the Proposed Activities

    Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound--The effects of sounds from 
pile driving might include one or more of the following: Temporary or 
permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological 
effects, and behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects of 
pile driving on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, 
including the type and depth of the animal; the pile size and type, and 
the intensity and duration of the pile driving sound; the substrate; 
the standoff distance between the pile and the animal; and the sound 
propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine mammals 
from pile driving activities are expected to result primarily from 
acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of effect is intrinsically 
related to the frequency, received level, and duration of the sound 
exposure, which are in turn influenced by the distance between the 
animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less 
intense the exposure should be. The substrate and depth of the habitat 
affect the sound propagation properties of the environment. In 
addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., sand) would absorb or 
attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (e.g., rock) 
which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates would also 
likely require less time to drive the pile, and possibly less forceful 
equipment, which would ultimately decrease the intensity of the 
acoustic source.
    Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals 
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can 
experience hearing threshold shifts. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS 
does not (Southall et al., 2007). Based on the best scientific 
information available, the SPLs for the proposed construction 
activities may exceed the thresholds that could cause TTS or the onset 
of PTS based on NMFS' new acoustic guidance (81 FR 51694; August 4, 
2016).
    Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological 
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals 
exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of 
extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result 
of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include 
neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other 
types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 
2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). The proposed activities do not involve 
the use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency active sonar 
that are associated with these types of effects, nor do they have SLs 
that may cause these extreme behavioral reactions, and are therefore, 
considered unlikely.
    Disturbance Reactions--Responses to continuous sound, such as 
vibratory pile installation, have not been documented as well as 
responses to pulsed sounds. With both types of pile driving, it is 
likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short 
term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the 
affected area. Specific behavioral changes that may result from this 
proposed project include changing durations of surfacing and dives, 
moving direction and/or speed; changing/cessation of certain behavioral 
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response 
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); 
and avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. If a marine 
mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through 
relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization 
behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the 
individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as 
a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an 
important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, potential 
impacts on the stock or species could potentially be significant if 
growth, survival and reproduction are affected (e.g., Lusseau and 
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Note that the significance of many of 
these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if 
the detected disturbances appear minor.

[[Page 31414]]

    Auditory Masking--Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt 
behavior by masking. Given that the energy distribution of pile driving 
covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these sources would 
likely be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the 
project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively short-term, 
and only used for proofing, with rapid pulses occurring for only a few 
minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving resulting 
from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important to the 
behavior and survival of marine mammal species is low. Vibratory pile 
driving is also relatively short-term. It is possible that vibratory 
pile driving resulting from this proposed action may mask acoustic 
signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal 
species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area would 
result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event that 
could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur 
concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already 
estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have already 
been taken into account in the exposure analysis.
    Airborne Acoustic Effects from the Proposed Activities--Pinnipeds 
that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds 
associated with pile driving that have the potential to cause 
behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving 
activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds 
that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.
    Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are 
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise 
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that 
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may 
result in behavioral harassment when looking with heads above water. 
Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to 
those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. However, these 
animals would previously have been ``taken'' as a result of exposure to 
underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are 
in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, 
the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in 
these estimates of potential take. Multiple instances of exposure to 
sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed 
to result in increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or 
intensity of disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that 
authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for 
pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further 
here.
    Potential Pile Driving Effects on Prey--Construction activities 
would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving) sounds and 
pulsed (i.e., impact driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds that are 
especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short 
duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish 
behavior and local distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified 
several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas 
of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile 
driving on fish, although several are based on studies in support of 
large, multiyear bridge construction projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 
2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Sound pulses at received levels 
of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may 
cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et 
al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury 
to fish and fish mortality.
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the 
project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance. The duration of 
fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a 
rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is 
anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species from the 
proposed project are expected to be minor and temporary due to the 
relatively short timeframe of no more than 40 days of pile driving and 
extraction with approximately 22 hours of impact driving and 85 hours 
of vibratory driving and extraction.
    Effects to Foraging Habitat--Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been 
designated within the project area for all five species of salmon 
(i.e., chum, pink, Coho, sockeye, and Chinook salmon), walleye pollock, 
Pacific cod, yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera), arrowtooth flounder 
(Atheresthes stomias), rock sole (Lepidopsetta spp.), flathead sole 
(Hippoglossoides elassodon), and sculpin (Cottidae). The EFH provisions 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act are 
designed to protect fisheries habitat from being lost due to 
disturbance and degradation.
    Pile installation may temporarily increase turbidity resulting from 
suspended sediments. Any increases would be temporary, localized, and 
minimal. ADOT&PF must comply with state water quality standards during 
these operations by limiting the extent of turbidity to the immediate 
project area. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation 
is localized to about a 25-foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 
1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the project 
pile driving areas to experience effects of turbidity, and any 
pinnipeds will be transiting the area and could avoid localized areas 
of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is 
expected to be discountable to marine mammals. Furthermore, pile 
driving and removal at the project site will not obstruct movements or 
migration of marine mammals.
    In summary, given the short duration of sound associated with 
individual pile driving events and the relatively small area that would 
be affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed 
action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish 
habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, any impacts to marine 
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term 
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

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.
    Harassment is the only means of take expected to result from these 
activities. 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]. As described previously Level A and 
Level B harassment is expected to occur and is proposed to be 
authorized in the numbers identified below.
    ADOT&PF has requested authorization for the incidental taking of 
limited numbers, by Level B harassment in the form of behavioral 
disturbance, of harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer whale, 
humpback whale, fin whale, gray whale, minke whale, Steller sea lion,

[[Page 31415]]

and harbor seal near the project area that may result from impact and 
vibratory pile driving activities. Level A harassment in the form of 
PTS resulting from impact driving has also been requested for small 
numbers of harbor porpoise, humpback whale, and harbor seal.
    Take estimates are generally based on average marine mammal density 
in the project area multiplied by the area size of ensonified zones 
within which received noise levels exceed certain thresholds (i.e., 
Level A and/or Level B harassment) from specific activities, then 
multiplied by the total number of days such activities would occur. If 
density information is not available, local observational data may be 
used instead.
    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 the sound field 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 incidents of take.

Sound Thresholds

    We use the following generic sound exposure thresholds (Table 4) to 
determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts 
to a marine mammal such that a take by behavioral harassment (Level B) 
might occur.

 Table 4--Underwater Level B Threshold Decibel Levels for Marine Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Criterion             Criterion definition     Threshold \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment............  Behavioral disruption   160 dB RMS.
                                 for impulse noise
                                 (e.g., impact pile
                                 driving).
Level B harassment............  Behavioral disruption   120 dB RMS.
                                 for non-pulse noise
                                 (e.g., vibratory pile
                                 driving, drilling).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All decibel levels referenced to 1 micropascal (re: 1 [mu]Pa). Note
  all thresholds are based off root mean square (RMS) levels.

    We use NMFS' acoustic criteria (NMFS 2016a, 81 FR 51694; August 4, 
2016), which establishes sound exposure thresholds to determine when an 
activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal 
such that a take by auditory injury, i.e., PTS, (Level A harassment) 
might occur. The specific methodology is presented in Appendix D of the 
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) 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. The 
acoustic thresholds are presented using dual metrics of 
SELcum and peak sound level (PK) as shown in Table 5. 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. The method uses estimates of sound 
exposure level and duration of the activity to calculate the threshold 
distances at which a marine mammal exposed to those values would 
experience PTS. Differences in hearing abilities among marine mammals 
are accounted for by use of weighting factor adjustments for the five 
functional hearing groups (NMFS 2016). Note that for all proposed pile 
driving activities at Sand Point, the User Spreadsheet indicated that 
the Level A isopleths generated using the SELcum were the 
largest.

            Table 5--Summary of PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     PTS onset acoustic thresholds \1\
                                             (received level)
          Hearing group          ---------------------------------------
                                       Impulsive         Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans....  Cell 1--Lpk,flat:   Cell 2--LE,LF,24h:
                                   219 dB;             199 dB.
                                   LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans....  Cell 3--Lpk,flat:   Cell 4--LE,MF,24h:
                                   230 dB;             198 dB.
                                   LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans...  Cell 5--Lpk,flat:   Cell 6--LE,HF,24h:
                                   202 dB;             173 dB.
                                   LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)             Cell 7--Lpk,flat:   Cell 8--LE,PW,24h:
 (Underwater).                     218 dB;             201 dB.
                                   LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)            Cell 9--Lpk,flat:   Cell 10--
 (Underwater).                     232 dB;             LE,OW,24h: 219
                                   LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.  dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.

[[Page 31416]]

 
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and
  cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of
  1[mu]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.

Distance to Sound Thresholds

    The sound field in the project area is the existing background 
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. 
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the 
primary components of the project, i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory 
pile driving, and vibratory pile removal. Vibratory hammers produce 
constant sound when operating, and produce vibrations that liquefy the 
sediment surrounding the pile, allowing it to penetrate to the required 
seating depth. An impact hammer would then generally be used to place 
the pile at its intended depth. The actual durations of each 
installation method vary depending on the type and size of the pile. An 
impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston, producing a 
series of independent strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering 
typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile 
installation. Factors that could potentially minimize the potential 
impacts of pile installation associated with the project include:
     The relatively shallow waters in the project area (Taylor 
et al., 2008);
     Land forms around Sand Point that would block the noise 
from spreading; and
     Vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial 
activities in the project area that contribute to elevated background 
noise levels.
    Sound would likely dissipate relatively rapidly in the shallow 
waters over soft seafloors in the project area. Additionally, portions 
of Popof Island and Unga Island would block much of the noise from 
propagating to its full extent through the marine environment.
    In order to calculate distances to the Level A and Level B sound 
thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in this project, NMFS 
used acoustic monitoring data from other locations. Note that piles of 
differing sizes have different sound source levels.
    Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF sound source verification (SSV) 
studies at Kake, Ketchikan, and Auke Bay, were used to estimate sound 
source levels (SSLs) for vibratory and impact installation of 30-inch 
steel pipe piles (MacGillivray et al., 2016, Warner and Austin 2016b, 
Denes et al., 2016a, respectively). Construction sites in Alaska were 
generally assumed to best represent the environmental conditions found 
in Sand Point and represent the nearest available source level data for 
30-inch steel piles. Similarities among the sites include island chains 
and groups of islands adjacent to continental landmasses; deeply 
incised marine channels and fjords; local water depths of 20-40 meters; 
Gulf of Alaska marine water influences; and numerous freshwater inputs. 
However, the use of data from Alaska sites was not appropriate in all 
instances. Details are described below.
    To derive source levels for vibratory driving of 30-in piles, NMFS 
used summary data from Auke Bay and Ketchikan as described in a 
comprehensive summary report by Denes et al., (2016b). During the two 
studies, three 30-inch steel piles were installed at each location via 
both impact and vibratory driving. For each pile, the mean recorded SPL 
in dB re 1 [mu]Pa was reported for the locations monitoring hydrophones 
(Denes et al., 2016; Warner and Austin 2016b). The vibratory data were 
then derived to a 10-meter standard distance. The average of the mean 
source levels from both Auke Bay and Ketchikan locations was then 
calculated for each measurement (rms and peak SPL, as well as sound 
exposure level [SEL]) (Denes et al., 2016b). ADOT&PF also considered 
data from a study in Kake (MacGillivray et al., 2016). However, 
conditions at Kake include an organic mud substrate which would likely 
absorb sound and decrease source level values for vibratory driving. 
NMFS believes that these conditions resulted in anomalous source level 
measurements for vibratory pile driving that would not be expected at 
locations with dissimilar substrates. NMFS will continue to evaluate 
use of these data on a case-specific basis, however, for these reasons 
vibratory data from that study was not included in this analysis. 
Results are shown in Table 6.
    For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel dolphin and fender piles, 
data from three projects (two projects in Washington and one in 
California) were reviewed. The Washington marine projects at the 
Washington State Ferries Friday Harbor Terminal (WSDOT, 2010) and Naval 
Base Kitsap, Bangor waterfront (Navy 2012), only measured one pile 
each, but reported similar sound levels of 162 dB RMS and 159 dB RMS 
(range 157 dB to 160 dB), respectively. Because only two piles were 
measured in Washington, the California project was also included in the 
analysis. The California project was located in a coastal bay and 
reported a ``typical'' value of 160 dB RMS with a range 158 to 178 dB 
RMS for two piles where vibratory levels were measured. Caltrans 
summarized the project's RMS level as 170 dB RMS, although most levels 
observed were nominally 160 dB. Although the data set is limited to 
these projects, close agreement of the levels (average project values 
from 159 to 162 dB at 10 meters) resulted in NMFS selecting a source 
level of 161 dB RMS. Note that a fourth project at NBK, Bangor drove 
16-inch hollow steel piles, with measured levels similar to those for 
the 24-inch piles. Therefore, NMFS elected to use the same 161 dB RMS 
as a source level for vibratory driving of 18-inch steel piles. NMFS 
believes it appropriate to use source levels from the next largest pile 
size when data are lacking for specific pile sizes, as is the case with 
the18-inch piles under consideration.
    ADOT&PF suggested a source level of 142 dB RMS for vibratory 
driving of steel H-piles. However, NMFS found this data to be 
inconsistent with other reported values and opted to use a value of 150 
dB which was derived from summary data pertaining to vibratory driving 
of 12-inch H piles (Caltrans 2015).
    In the application, ADOT&PF derived source levels for impact 
driving of 30-inch steel piles by averaging the individual mean values 
associated with impact driving of the same size and type from Auke Bay, 
Kake, and Ketchikan (Denes et al., 2016a; MacGillivray et al., 2016; 
Warner and Austin 2016b; Denes et al., 2016b). Impact driving values at 
Kake did not seem to be influenced by substrate conditions in the way 
vibratory driving measurements are believed to have been and, 
therefore, Kake data was included. The average of the mean source 
levels from these three sites was then calculated for each metric (rms, 
SEL, and peak). Results are shown in Table 6.

[[Page 31417]]

    For the 24-inch impact pile driving, NMFS used data from a Navy 
(2015) study of proxy sound source values for use at Puget Sound 
military installations. The Navy study recommended a value of 193 dB 
RMS which was derived from data generated by impact driving of 24-inch 
steel piles at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Preservation 
Project and the Friday Harbor Restoration Ferry Terminal Project. NMFS 
found this estimated source level to be appropriate.

    Table 6--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels (Decibels) Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile
                                     Installation and Vibratory Pile Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Method and pile type                      Sound level at 10 meters
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Literature source
           Vibratory hammer                           dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles...................                                          165.6   Derived from Denes et
                                                                                         al. 2016a (Auke);
                                                                                         Warner and Austin 2016b
                                                                                         (Ketchikan).
24-inch steel piles...................                                            161   WSDOT 2010; Caltrans
                                                                                         2012; Navy 2012.
18-inch steel piles...................                                            161   WSDOT 2010; Caltrans
                                                                                         2012; Navy 2012.
Steel H-piles.........................                                            150   Caltrans 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
             Impact hammer                  dB rms          dB SEL          dB peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles...................           193.6           179.3           207.1  Derived from Denes et
                                                                                         al. 2016a; Warner and
                                                                                         Austin 2016b,
                                                                                         MacGillivray et al.,
                                                                                         2016.
24-inch steel piles...................             193             181             210  Navy 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 * log 10 (R 1/R 2)

Where:

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R 1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven 
pile, and
R 2 = 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.
    Pulse duration from the SSV studies described above are unknown. 
All necessary parameters were available for the SELcum (cumulative 
Single Strike Equivalent) method for calculating isopleths. Therefore, 
this method was selected. To account for potential variations in daily 
productivity during impact installation, isopleths were calculated for 
different numbers of piles that could be installed each day (Table 7). 
Should the contractor expect to install fewer piles in a day than the 
maximum anticipated, a smaller Level A shutdown zone would be employed 
to monitor take.
    To derive Level A harassment isopleths associated with the impact 
driving of 30-inch piles, ADOT&PF utilized a single strike SEL of 179.3 
dB and assumed 1000 strikes per pile for 1 to 4 piles per day. For 24-
inch dolphin piles, ADOT&PF used a single strike SEL of 181 dB and 
assumed 400 strikes at a rate of 1 or 2 piles per day. For 24-inch 
fender piles, ADOT&PF used the same single strike SEL of 181 dB and 
assumed 120 strikes per pile and 1 to 4 pile installations per day. To 
calculate Level A harassment isopleths associated with the vibratory 
driving of 30-inch piles, ADOT&PF utilized a source level (RMS SPL) of 
165.6 dB and assumed 3 hours of driving per day. For 24-inch dolphin 
and fender piles, ADOT&PF used a source level of 161 dB and assumed up 
to 2 hours of driving per day. For installation and/or removal of piles 
less than 24-inches in diameter, ADOT&PF assumed use of 18-inch piles 
and used the same source level of 161 dB for up to 3 hours per day. If 
H-piles are used, a source level of 150 dB was utilized. Practical 
spreading was used in all instances. Results are shown in Table 7. 
Isopleths for Level B harassment associated with impact (160 dB) and 
vibratory harassment (120 dB) were also calculated and are included in 
Table 7.

               Table 7--Pile Installation and Removal Activities and Calculated Distances to Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Estimated duration       Level A harassment zone (meters) (based on new          Level B
                                                          ----------------------                  technical guidance)                    Harassment Zone
                                                                                -------------------------------------------------------  (meters) (based
                                                                                            Cetaceans                   Pinnipeds         on practical
                                                                                -------------------------------------------------------  spreading loss
                         Activity                          Hours per   Days of                                                               model)
                                                              day       effort                                                         -----------------
                                                                                     LF         MF         HF         PW         OW       Cetaceans and
                                                                                                                                         Pinnipeds (120
                                                                                                                                               dB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation 30''..............................          3         13       28.8        2.6       42.6       17.5        1.2   10,970 (10,964)
Vibratory Installation 24'' Dolphin......................          1          2        6.8        0.6       10.1        4.2        0.3
Vibratory Installation 24'' Fender.......................          2          2       10.8          1         16        6.6        0.5     5,420 (5,412)
Vibratory Installation and/or removal <24'' (18'').......          3         15         14          1         21        8.6        0.6

[[Page 31418]]

 
Vibratory Installation and/or removal <24'' (H-piles)....          3         15        2.6        0.2        3.9        1.6        0.1             1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Cetaceans                   Pinnipeds         Cetaceans and
                   Activity                     Piles per   Strikes    Days of  -------------------------------------------------------  Pinnipeds  (160
                                                   day      per pile    effort       LF         MF         HF         PW         OW            dB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Installation 30''......................          4      1,000         13      1,426         51      1,699        763         56     1,740 (1,738)
                                                        3                    18      1,177         42      1,402        630         46
                                                        2                    26        898         32      1,070        481         35
                                                        1                    52        566         20        674        303         22
Impact Installation 24'' Dolphin..............          2        400          2        633         23        754        339         25
                                                        1                     3        399         14        475        213         16
Impact Installation 24'' Fender...............          4        120          2        450         16        537        241         18     1,590 (1,585)
                                                        3                     3        372         13        443        199         15
                                                        2                     4        284         10        338        152         11
                                                        1                     8        178          6        213         96          7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To account for potential variations in daily productivity during impact installation, isopleths were calculated for different numbers of piles that
  could be installed each day (Therefore, should the contractor expect to install fewer piles in a day than the maximum anticipated, a smaller Level A
  shutdown zone would be required to avoid take.)

    Note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is 
significantly constrained by local topography relative to the total 
threshold radius. The actual ensonified area was determined using a 
straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving 
locations. The corresponding areas of the Level A and Level B 
ensonified zones for impact driving and vibratory installation/removal 
are shown in Table 8.

 Table 8--Calculated Areas (km\2\) Ensonified Within Level A and Level B Harassment Thresholds in Excess of 100-Meter Distance During Pile Installation
                                                                 and Removal Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Estimated duration       Level A harassment zone (km\2\) (based on new           Level B
                                                          ----------------------                  technical guidance)                    harassment zone
                                                                                -------------------------------------------------------  (km\2\) (based
                                                                                            Cetaceans                   Pinnipeds         on practical
                                                                                -------------------------------------------------------  spreading loss
                         Activity                          Hours per   Days of                                                               model)
                                                              day       effort                                                         -----------------
                                                                                     LF         MF         HF         PW         OW       Cetaceans and
                                                                                                                                         Pinnipeds (120
                                                                                                                                               dB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation 30''..............................          3         13         NA         NA         NA         NA         NA             24.42
Vibratory Installation 24'' Dolphin......................          1          2         NA         NA         NA         NA         NA             17.19
Vibratory Installation 24'' Fender.......................          2          2         NA         NA         NA         NA         NA
Vibratory Installation and/or removal <24'' (18'').......          3         15         NA         NA         NA         NA         NA
Vibratory Installation and/or removal <24'' (H-piles)....          3         15         NA         NA         NA         NA         NA              1.47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Cetaceans                   Pinnipeds         Cetaceans and
                   Activity                     Piles per   Strikes    Days of  -------------------------------------------------------  Pinnipeds (160
                                                   day      per pile    effort       LF         MF         HF         PW         OW            dB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Installation 30''......................          4      1,000         13       2.84         NA       3.91       0.91         NA              4.08
                                                        3                    18       1.98         NA       2.75       0.66         NA
                                                        2                    26       1.21         NA       1.66       0.41         NA
                                                        1                    52       0.55         NA       0.74       0.18         NA
Impact Installation 24'' Dolphin..............          2        400          2       0.67         NA       0.89       0.22         NA              3.45
                                                        1                     3       0.29         NA       0.40       0.09         NA

[[Page 31419]]

 
Impact Installation 24'' Fender...............          4        120          2       0.36         NA       0.50       0.11         NA
                                                        3                     3       0.26         NA       0.35       0.08         NA
                                                        2                     4       0.16         NA       0.22       0.04         NA
                                                        1                     8       0.06         NA       0.09       0.02         NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for 
each threshold were estimated using local marine mammal density 
datasets where available and local observational data.

Dall's Porpoise

    There currently is no information on the presence or abundance of 
Dall's porpoises in the Shumagin Islands. No sightings of Dall's 
porpoises have been documented in Humboldt Harbor and they are not 
expected to occur there (HDR 2017). However, individuals may occur in 
the deeper waters north of Popof Island or in Popof Strait, west of the 
Sand Point Airport. These porpoises have been sighted infrequently on 
research cruises heading in and out of Sand Point in deeper local 
waters (Speckman, Pers. Comm.). Dall's porpoise are non-migratory; 
therefore, exposure estimates are not dependent on season. Exposure of 
Dall's porpoise to noise from impact hammer pile installation is 
unlikely, as they are not expected to occur within the 1,738 meter 
Level B harassment zone. Similarly, we do not anticipate Dall's 
porpoise would be exposed to noise in excess of the Level A harassment 
threshold, which would be located at a maximum distance of 1,699 
meters. It is possible, however, that they would occur in the larger 
Level B zone associated with vibratory driving of 30-inch (up to 10,970 
meters) and 24-inch piles (up to 5,420 meters). Over the course of 40 
days in which vibratory driving will be employed, NMFS conservatively 
anticipates no more than one observation of a Dall's porpoise pod in 
these Level B vibratory harassment zones. With an average pod size of 
3.7 (Wade et al. 2003), NMFS estimates up to four Dall's porpoises 
could be taken during the pile installation period. No Level A take is 
proposed for Dall's porpoises.

Harbor Porpoise

    There are no reports of harbor porpoises or harbor porpoise 
densities in the Shumagin Islands. It is reasonable to assume that they 
would occur in the vicinity of Popof and Unga Islands given that they 
are common in the Gulf of Alaska and their preferred habitat consists 
of coastal waters of 100 meters or less (Hobbs and Waite 2010). Based 
on the known range of the Gulf of Alaska stock, only six sightings of 
singles or pairs during 110 days of monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry 
Terminal and Dock Improvements project, and occasional sightings during 
monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, it is 
assumed that harbor porpoises could be present on an intermittent 
basis.
    Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, exposure estimates 
are not dependent on season. NMFS conservatively estimates harbor 
porpoise could be exposed to construction-related in-water noise on two 
out of every three construction days. Harbor porpoises in this area 
have an average group size of 1.82. Therefore, NMFS estimates 49 harbor 
porpoise exposures as shown below.
    Sighting every 0.667 days * 40 days of exposure * 1.82 group size = 
49 (48.55) rounded up).
    During impact installation of piles, the Level A harassment 
isopleth for harbor porpoises extends up to 1,699 meters when a maximum 
of four 30-inch piles are installed on the same day. Given that harbor 
porpoises prefer near-shore waters, we anticipate that it is possible 
for up to one-third of the harbor porpoise sighting to occur in a Level 
A harassment zone. Therefore, NMFS proposes that of the 49 exposures, 
16 will occur within a Level A harassment isopleth and 33 will occur 
within a Level B harassment isopleth.

Killer Whale

    Line transect surveys conducted in the Shumagin Islands between 
2001 and 2003 did not record any resident killer whales, but did record 
a relatively high abundance of transient killer whales (Zerbini et al., 
2007). The same study estimated a density of approximately 0.002 killer 
whales per square kilometer (km\2\) in the Shumagin Islands (Zerbini et 
al., 2007). The population trend of the transient stock of killer 
whales in Alaska has remained stable since the 1980s (Muto et al., 
2016a). Anecdotal observations indicate that killer whales are not 
often seen in the vicinity of Sand Point, including Popof Strait (HDR 
2017). Killer whales are expected to be uncommon in the project area 
and are not expected to enter into Humboldt Harbor. However, NMFS used 
the density estimate of 0.002 per km\2\ to determine the number of 
killer whales potentially observed within the project area. Given the 
low probability of occurrence within the project area, using the 
available density estimates as an indication of exposure is a 
conservative approach to estimate potential killer whale exposure to 
pile driving noise. Vibratory installation of 30-inch piles will occur 
on 13 days while vibratory installation of 24-inch dolphin piles, 24-
inch fender piles, and temporary 18-inch or h-piles will occur on a 
total of 19 days. NMFS assumed that 18-inch piles would be installed 
instead of h-piles and that 18-inch piles have the same source level 
and isopleth as 24-in piles. NMFS also added a 25 percent contingency 
factor to account for unanticipated delays. Therefore, there would be 
up to 16.25 days of vibratory installation of 30-inch piles and 23.75 
days of 24-inch piles. At a density of 0.002 whales/km\2\, NMFS 
anticipates approximately 0.79 killer whales (i.e., 0.002 whales/km\2\ 
* 24.42 km\2\ 30-inch vibratory harassment zone * 16.25 days) would be 
exposed to Level B harassment associated with 30-inch vibratory driving 
while 0.82 killer whales (i.e., 0.002 whales/km\2\ * 17.19 km\2\ 24-
inch vibratory harassment zone * 23.75 days) would be exposed to Level 
B harassment from 24-inch vibratory driving over 40 days. Over the 40 
day construction period, 2 killer whales (1.61 rounded up) would be 
exposed to Level B harassment.
    However, killer whales generally travel in pods, or groups of 
individuals. The average pod size for transient killer whales is four 
individuals (Zerbini et al. 2007) and 5-50 for resident killer whales 
(Heise et al. 2003). A monitoring report associated with issuance of an 
IHA for Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project recorded 
four killer whale pod observations during 110 days of monitoring with 
the largest pod size consisting of seven individuals. NMFS will, 
therefore, assume that there will be sightings of two pods with an 
average group size of

[[Page 31420]]

seven over the course of the 40-day construction period resulting in a 
total estimate of 14 killer whale Level B takes. These killer whales 
would likely be transients, but could also be residents, so take is 
proposed for both stocks. No Level A take is proposed for killer whales 
since the injury zone is smaller than the 100 meter shutdown zone.

Humpback Whale

    Surveys from 2001 to 2004 estimated humpback whale abundance in the 
Shumagin Islands at between 410 and 593 individuals during the summer 
feeding season (July-August; Witteveen et al., 2004; Zerbini et al., 
2006). Annual vessel-based, photo-identification surveys in the 
Shumagin Islands from 1999 to 2015 identified 654 unique individual 
humpback whales between June and September (Witteveen and Wynne 2016). 
Humpback whale abundance in the Shumagin Islands increased 6 percent 
per year between 1987 and 2003 (Zerbini et al., 2006). Between 2001 and 
2003, summer line transect surveys in the Shumagin Islands estimated 
the humpback whale density at 0.02 whales per km\2\ (Zerbini et al., 
2006). Given an approximate population increase of 6 percent each year 
since the early 2000's (Muto et al., 2016b), we conservatively estimate 
the current density of humpback whales as about 0.04 whale per km\2\ 
(0.02 whale/km\2\ * [6 percent increase/year * 13 years]).
    Exposure of humpback whales to Level A and Level B harassment noise 
levels is possible in August and, to a lesser extent, in September. 
Exposure is unlikely between October and December because humpback 
whale abundance is low during late fall and winter. Humpback whales, 
when present, are unlikely to enter Humboldt Harbor or approach the 
City of Sand Point, but would instead transit through Popof Strait or 
feed in the deeper waters off the airport, between Popof and Unga 
islands (HDR 2017). Harassment from pile installation is possible in 
waters between Popof and Unga islands, including Popof Strait. Because 
we do not know exactly when construction might occur, we will use the 
updated summer density estimate (and our only density estimate) of 0.04 
whales/km\2\ to estimate exposure.
    At a density of 0.04 whales/km\2\, NMFS anticipates approximately 
15.87 humpback whales (i.e., 0.04 whales/km\2\ * 24.42 km\2\ 30-inch 
vibratory harassment zone * 16.25 days) would be exposed to harassment 
on days when 30-inch vibratory driving would occur. Additionally, 16.33 
whales (i.e., 0.04 whales/km\2\ * 17.19 km\2\ 24-inch vibratory 
harassment zone * 23.75 days) would be exposed to harassment on days in 
which 24-inch piles are driven for a total of 32 (32.2 rounded down) 
whale takes over 40 days.
    A subset of the 32 humpback whales potentially exposed to 
harassment noise levels may enter the Level A harassment zone, which 
extends 1,426 meters assuming an optimal productivity of driving four 
30-inch piles per day; 633 meters when driving two 24-inch dolphins; 
and 450 meters when driving four 24-inch fenders. NMFS has again added 
a 25 percent contingency and will assume 16.25 days of 30-inch impact 
pile driving, 2.5 days of 24-inch dolphin installation and 2.5 days of 
24-inch fender installation. Note that when estimating Level A take, 
NMFS conservatively defaulted to the Level A isopleth and corresponding 
area associated with maximum number of piles that can driven each day 
for each pile size. We anticipate approximately 1.84 humpback whales 
(e.g., 0.04 whales/km\2\ * 2.84 km\2\ Level A harassment zone * 16.25 
days) would be exposed to Level A harassment during 30-inch impact pile 
driving; approximately 0.07 humpback whales (e.g., 0.04 whales/km\2\ * 
0.67 km\2\ Level A harassment zone * 2.5 days) would be exposed to 
Level A harassment during 24-inch dolphin installation; and 
approximately 0.04 humpback whales (e.g., 0.04 whales/km\2\ * 0.36 
km\2\ Level A harassment zone * 2.5 days) would be exposed to Level A 
harassment during 24-inch fender installation. Therefore, a total of 2 
(1.95 rounded up) humpback whales could be exposed to Level A 
harassment. Therefore, NMFS is proposing 30 Level B and 2 Level A 
humpback whale takes.
    Humpback whales found in the Shumagin Islands are predominantly 
members of the Hawaii DPS, which are not listed under the ESA. However, 
based on a comprehensive photo-identification study, members of both 
the Western North Pacific DPS (ESA-listed as endangered) and Mexico DPS 
(ESA-listed as threatened) are known to occur in the Gulf of Alaska and 
Aleutian Islands. Members of different DPSs are known to intermix on 
feeding grounds; therefore, all waters off the coast of Alaska should 
be considered to have ESA-listed humpback whales. According to Wade et 
al., (2016), the probability of encountering a humpback whale from the 
Western North Pacific DPS in the Gulf of Alaska is 0.5 percent (CV 
[coefficient of variation] = 0.001). The probability of encountering a 
humpback whale from the Mexico DPS is 10.5 percent (CV = 0.16). The 
remaining 89 percent (CV = 0.01) of individuals in the Gulf of Alaska 
are likely members of the Hawaii DPS (Wade et al., 2016). Therefore it 
is estimated that 28 humpback whales would be from the Hawaii DPS, 
three humpback whales would be from the threatened Mexico DPS, and 1 
humpback whale would be from the endangered Western North Pacific DPS. 
Given the small number of anticipated Level A takes, NMFS will assume 
that both authorized Level A takes represent members of the Hawaii DPS.

Fin Whale

    Vessel-based line-transect surveys of coastal waters between 
Resurrection Bay and the central Aleutian Islands were completed in 
July and August from 2001 to 2003. Large concentrations of fin whales 
were found in the Semidi Islands, located midway between the Shumagin 
Islands and Kodiak Island just south of the Alaska Peninsula. The 
abundance of fin whales in the Shumagin Islands ranged from a low 
estimate of 604 in 2003 to a high estimate of 1,113 in 2002. The 
estimated density of fin whales in the Shumagin Islands was 0.007 
whales per km\2\ and this is the density estimate assumed for the 
project area (Zerbini et al., 2006). Fin whale density in the Shumagin 
Islands at other times of the year is unknown, and they are uncommon in 
Humboldt Harbor or Popof Strait (HDR 2017). At a density of 0.007 
whales/km\2\, NMFS anticipates approximately 2.77 fin whales (i.e., 
0.007 whales/km\2\ * 24.42 km\2\ 30-inch vibratory harassment zone * 
16.25 days) would be exposed to Level B harassment on days when 30-inch 
vibratory driving would occur. Additionally, 2.86 whales (i.e., 0.007 
whales/km\2\ * 17.19 km\2\ 24-inch vibratory harassment zone * 23.75 
days) would be exposed to Level B harassment on days in which 24-inch 
piles are driven for a total of 6 (5.63 rounded up) Level B takes of 
fin whales over 40 days. Therefore, NMFS is proposing 6 Level B fin 
whale takes. Fin whales are typically found in deep, offshore waters so 
no Level A take is proposed for this species.

Minke Whale

    There are no population estimates for minke whales in Alaska; 
however, nearshore aerial surveys of the western Gulf of Alaska took 
place between 2001 and 2003. These surveys estimated the minke whale 
population in that area at approximately 1,233 individuals (Zerbini et 
al. 2006). Conservatively, minke whales could be exposed to 
construction-related noise levels year round. Surveys indicate a 
density of

[[Page 31421]]

0.001 minke whales per km\2\ south of the Alaska Peninsula (including 
the Shumagin Islands). At a density of 0.001 whales/km\2\, NMFS 
anticipates approximately 0.40 minke whales (i.e., 0.001 whales/km\2\ * 
24.42 km\2\ 30-inch vibratory harassment zone * 16.25 days) would be 
exposed to Level B harassment on days when 30-inch vibratory driving 
would occur. Additionally, 0.41 whales (i.e., 0.001 whales/km\2\ * 
17.19 km\2\ 24-inch vibratory harassment zone * 23.75 days) would be 
exposed to Level B harassment on days in which 24-inch piles are driven 
for a total of 1 (0.81 rounded up) level B take of minke whales over 40 
construction days. With a pod size of two or three (NMFS 2015), NMFS 
proposes that three minke whales could be taken during the 40-day 
construction period. No Level A take is proposed for minke whales due 
to low abundance near the project area.

Gray Whale

    Gray whales could potentially migrate through the area between 
March through May and November through January. Gray whale presence 
near Sand Point and in Humboldt Harbor is rare and unlikely to occur 
during the construction period. As such, exposure of gray whales to 
noise from impact hammer pile installation is unlikely, as they are not 
expected to occur within the 1,426 meter harassment zone. Harassment 
from vibratory pile installation is possible in the deeper water north 
of Popof Strait. Because there are no density estimates for the area 
and the rarity of gray whales within the project area, NMFS 
conservatively estimates that gray whales will not be observed more 
than one time during the construction period. Multiplying the one 
potential observation by the average pod size of 2.4 (Rugh et al., 
2005), NMFS estimates that two gray whales could be exposed to 
construction-related noise at the Level B harassment level over the 
course of the construction period. No Level A take is proposed for gray 
whales.

Steller Sea Lion

    The number of unique individuals used to calculate take was based 
on information reported by the nearby seafood processing facility. It 
is estimated that about 12 unique individual sea lions likely occur in 
Humboldt Harbor each day during the pollock fishing seasons (HDR 2017). 
It is assumed that Steller sea lions may be present every day, and also 
that take will include multiple harassments of the same individual(s) 
both within and among days. It is also assumed that 12 unique 
individual sea lions occur in Humboldt Harbor each day and could 
potentially be exposed to Level B harassment over 40 days of 
construction. Given that the project area is located within the aquatic 
zones (i.e., designated critical habitat) of two designated major 
haulouts (Sea Lion Rocks and The Whaleback), sea lions could commonly 
enter into the Level B ensonified zone outside of the Humboldt Harbor. 
As such, it assumed that an additional 12 animals per day may occur in 
the Level B harassment zone outside of Humboldt Harbor. Total exposures 
is calculated using the following equation:

24 sea lions per day * 40 days of exposure = 960 potential exposures

    No Level A take is proposed for Steller sea lions since the Level A 
isopleths are smaller than the 100 meter shutdown zone.

Harbor Seal

    Anecdotal observations indicate that harbor seals are uncommon in 
Humboldt Harbor proper (HDR 2017). However, they are expected to occur 
occasionally in the project area. The Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock 
Improvements Project on Kodiak Island recorded 13 single sightings of 
harbor seals during 110 days of monitoring. Although the harbor seal 
stock is different at Kodiak (South Kodiak stock) and the project sites 
are somewhat dissimilar, NMFS used this information to conservatively 
estimate that one harbor seal could be present near Sand Point on any 
given day. An aerial haulout survey in 2011 estimated that 15 harbor 
seals occupy the survey unit along the south coast of Popof Island 
(London et al., 2015) and anecdotal observations indicate that harbor 
seals are known to occur intermittently near the airport (HDR 2017). 
NMFS conservatively estimates that one animal per day will be observed 
near the harbor while another animal will occur near the airport or 
elsewhere within an ensonified zone. Therefore, NMFS proposes that up 
to two harbor seals may be taken each day during the 40-day pile 
installation period for a total of 80 authorized takes.
    During impact installation of 30-inch piles, the Level A harassment 
isopleth for harbor seals extends out to a maximum distance of 763 
meters on days when four piles are driven; out to 339 meters when two 
24-inch dolphins are installed on the same day; and out to 241 meters 
when four fenders are installed on a single day. Harbor seals often act 
curious toward on-shore activities and are known to approach humans, 
lifting their heads from the water to look around. Given that harbor 
seals are likely to be found in the near-shore environment, we are 
proposing limited Level A take since the impact pile driving injury 
zones can extend well beyond the 100 meter shutdown zone. We anticipate 
that up to one-third of harbor seal takes would be by Level A 
harassment resulting in 27 Level A and 53 Level B proposed takes of 
harbor seals.

Proposed 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 
and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully balance two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the 
degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is 
expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or 
stocks, and their habitat which considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as 
the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and 
the likelihood of effective implementation, and; (2) the practicability 
of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such 
things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military 
readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, 
and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    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

[[Page 31422]]

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, and;
    (b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, tug boats), 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).
    (c) Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual 
monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.
    The following measures would apply to ADOT&PFs mitigation 
requirements:
    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 
for some authorized species, 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. A conservative 
shutdown zone of 100 meters will be monitored during all pile driving 
activities to prevent Level A exposure to most species. During 
vibratory installation of piles of all sizes and impact installation of 
24-inch piles, piles under 24 inches, and H-piles, a 100-meter shutdown 
zone would prevent Level A take to marine mammals. A 100-meter shutdown 
zone would also be sufficient to prevent Level A take of mid-frequency 
cetaceans and otariid pinnipeds (i.e., Steller sea lions) during impact 
installation of 30-inch and 24-inch piles. Note that Level A take is 
not proposed for the low-frequency species of fin whale, gray whale and 
minke whale, mid-frequency killer whale and high-frequency Dall's 
porpoise since estimated take numbers are low. In the unlikely 
occurrence that animals of these species are observed approaching their 
respective Level A zones, pile driving operations will shut down.
    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 PTS. During impact 
installation of 30-inch and 24-inch piles, a 100-meter shutdown zone 
would not be sufficient to prevent Level A take of low-frequency 
cetaceans (i.e., humpback whales), high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., 
harbor porpoises), or phocid pinnipeds (i.e., harbor seals). For this 
reason, Level A take for small numbers of humpback whales, harbor 
porpoises, and harbor seals is proposed.
    To account for potential variations in daily productivity during 
impact installation, isopleths were calculated for different numbers of 
piles that could be installed each day. Therefore, should the 
contractor expect to install fewer piles in a day than the maximum 
anticipated, a smaller Level A shutdown zone reflecting the number of 
piles driven would be required to avoid take. Furthermore, if the first 
pile is driven and no marine mammals have been observed within the 
radius of corresponding Level A zone, then the Level A radius for the 
next pile shall be decreased to next largest Level A radius. This 
pattern shall continue unless an animal is observed within the most 
recent shutdown zone radius, at which that specific shutdown radius 
shall remain in effect for the rest of the workday. Additionally, if 
piles of different sizes are installed in a single day, the size of the 
monitored Level A zone for all installed piles will default to the 
isopleth corresponding to the largest pile being driven that day. Level 
A zones will be rounded up to the nearest 10 m and are depicted in 
Table 9.

                              Table 9--Level A Zone Isopleths During Impact Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Isopleths (m)
                                       Piles installed  --------------------------------------------------------
              Activity                     per day          LF (Humpback        HF (Harbor
                                                              whales)           porpoises)     PW (Harbor seals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Installation 30''............                  4      1,430 (1,426)      1,700 (1,699)          770 (763)
                                                      3      1,180 (1,177)      1,410 (1,402)          630 (630)
                                                      2          900 (898)      1,070 (1,070)          490 (481)
                                                      1          570 (566)          680 (674)          310 (303)
Impact Installation 24'' Dolphin....                  2          640 (633)          760 (754)          340 (339)
                                                      1          400 (399)          480 (475)          220 (213)
Impact Installation 24'' Fender.....                  4          450 (450)          540 (537)          250 (241)
                                                      3          380 (372)          450 (443)          200 (199)
                                                      2          290 (284)          340 (338)          160 (152)
                                                      1          180 (178)          220 (213)           100 (96)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishment of Disturbance Zones--ADOT&PF will establish Level B 
disturbance zones or zones of influence (ZOI) which are areas where 
SPLs equal or exceed 160 dB rms for impact driving and 120 dB rms 
during 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. The Level B zone isopleths will be 
rounded up to the nearest 10 m and are depicted in Table 10.

[[Page 31423]]



  Table 10--Level B Zone Isopleths During Impact and Vibratory Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Level B
                                                        harassment zone
                                                        (meters) (based
                                                          on practical
                                                         spreading loss
                       Activity                              model)
                                                      ------------------
                                                         Cetaceans and
                                                         Pinnipeds (120
                                                              dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation 30''..........................    10,970 (10,964)
Vibratory Installation 24'' Dolphin..................      5,420 (5,412)
Vibratory Installation 24'' Fender...................      5,420 (5,412)
Vibratory Installation and/or removal <24'' or H-          5,420 (5,412)
 piles...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Activity                          Cetaceans and
                                                           Pinnipeds
                                                            (160 dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Installation 30''.............................      1,740 (1,738)
Impact Installation 24'' Dolphin.....................      1,740 (1,738)
Impact Installation 24'' Fender......................      1,740 (1,738)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 is not required during 
vibratory pile driving and removal activities.
    Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water 
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 
minutes or longer occurs, the observer will observe the shutdown and 
monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be 
cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within zone for that 
30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown 
zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or 
has not been observed for 30 minutes (for cetaceans) and 15 minutes 
(for pinnipeds). If the Level B harassment zone has been observed for 
30 minutes and non-permitted species are not present within the zone, 
soft start procedures can commence and work can continue even if 
visibility becomes impaired within the Level B zone. If the Level B 
zone is not visible while work continues, exposures will be recorded at 
the estimated exposure rate for each permitted species. If work ceases 
for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both zones 
must recommence.
    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.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species 
or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an 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 
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 mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the 
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 marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Marine Mammal Observation

    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, 
two MMOs will be positioned at the best practical vantage point(s). The 
monitoring position may vary based on pile driving activities and the 
locations of the piles

[[Page 31424]]

and driving equipment. The monitoring location(s) will be identified 
with the following characteristics: (1) Unobstructed view of pile being 
driven; (2) Unobstructed view of all water within the Level A (if 
applicable) and Level B harassment zones for pile being driven, 
although it is understood that monitoring may be impaired at longer 
distances; and (3) Safe distance from pile driving activities in the 
construction area. If necessary, observations may occur from two 
locations simultaneously. Potential observation locations include the 
existing City Dock, the airport, the fish processing facility, or the 
quarry hillside located south of the project site.
    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 binoculars, big-eye 
binoculars and a spotting scope to search continuously for marine 
mammals during all pile driving and extraction activities.
    The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
     If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the 
observers' ability to make observations within 100 m of the pile 
driving activity (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.
     If a marine mammal authorized for Level A take is present 
within the Level A harassment zone, a Level A take would be recorded. 
If Level A take reaches the authorized limit, then pile installation 
would be stopped as these species approach the Level A harassment area 
to avoid additional take of these species.
     If a marine mammal authorized for Level B take is present 
in the Level B harassment zone, pile driving activities or soft-start 
may begin and a Level B take would be recorded. Pile driving activities 
may occur when these species are in the Level B harassment zone, 
whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A zone (if 
relevant), shutdown zone or from outside the project area. If Level B 
take reaches the authorized limit, then pile installation would be 
stopped as these species approach to avoid additional take of these 
species.
     If a marine mammal is present in the Level B harassment 
zone, pile driving activities may be delayed to avoid a Level B take of 
an authorized species. Pile driving activities or soft-start would then 
begin only after the MMO has determined, through sighting, that the 
animal(s) has moved outside the Level B harassment zone or if it has 
not been seen in the Level B zone for 30 minutes (for cetaceans) and 15 
minutes (for pinnipeds).
     If any marine mammal species not authorized for take are 
encountered during activities and are likely to be exposed to Level B 
harassment, then ADOT&PF must stop pile driving activities and report 
observations to NMFS' Office of Protected Resources;
     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 authorized cetacean or pinniped 
present in the relevant injury zone. The Level A zones are shown in 
Table 9.
     The MMOs will record any authorized cetacean or pinniped 
present in the relevant disturbance zone. The Level B zones are shown 
in Table 10.
     Ongoing in-water pile installation may be continued during 
periods when conditions such as low light, darkness, high sea state, 
fog, ice, rain, glare, or other conditions prevent effective marine 
mammal monitoring of the entire Level B harassment zone. MMOs would 
continue to monitor the visible portion of the Level B harassment zone 
throughout the duration of driving activities.
     At the end of the pile driving day, post-construction 
monitoring shall be conducted for 30 minutes beyond the cessation of 
pile driving;

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.

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, including the total number extrapolated from observed 
animals across the entirety of relevant monitoring zones. 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.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    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.), as well as 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

[[Page 31425]]

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 3. 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 extraction activities associated with the Sand 
Point City Dock Replacement Project, as outlined previously, have the 
potential to injure, disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, 
Level A harassment (injury) in the form of PTS may occur to a limited 
numbers of three marine mammal species while a total of nine species 
could experience Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance). Potential 
takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in Level 
A or Level B ensonified zones when pile driving or removal is under 
way.
    No 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 (PTS) that cannot 
reasonably be prevented through mitigation. The marine mammals 
authorized for Level A take (27 harbor seals, 16 harbor porpoises, and 
2 humpback whales) are estimated to experience PTS if they remain 
within the outer limits of a Level A harassment zone during the entire 
time that impact pile driving would occur during a single day. Marine 
mammal species, however, are known to avoid areas where noise levels 
are high (Richardson et al.,1995). Animals would likely move away from 
the sound source and exit the Level A zone. Because of the proximity to 
the source in which the animals would have to approach, and the longer 
time in which they would need to remain in a farther proximity from the 
sound source within a Level A zone, we believe the likelihood of marine 
mammals experiencing PTS is low but acknowledge it could occur. 
Although NMFS is authorizing limited take by PTS, the anticipated takes 
reflect the onset of PTS, which would be relatively mild, rather than 
severe PTS which would be expected to have more impact on an animal's 
overall fitness.
    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 driving and 
extraction activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful 
than, numerous construction activities conducted in similar locations 
in Alaska, 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.
    ADOT&PF's proposed activities are localized and of relatively short 
duration. The entire project area is limited to the Sand Point dock 
area and its immediate surroundings. Specifically, the use of impact 
driving will be limited to approximately 22 hours over the course of up 
to 40 days of construction. Total vibratory pile driving time is 
estimated at approximately 85 hours over the same period. While impact 
driving does have the potential to cause injury to marine mammals, 
mitigation in the form of a 100 m shutdown zone should limit exposure 
to potentially injurious sound.
    The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on 
marine mammal habitat. No important marine mammal reproductive areas, 
such as rookeries, are known to exist within the ensonified areas. The 
proposed project is located within the aquatic zones (i.e., designated 
critical habitat) of two major Steller sea lion haul outs, and the 
Level B underwater harassment zone associated with the proposed project 
overlaps with a third. The closest major haulout is approximately 27 km 
distant. The project activities are limited in time and would not 
modify existing marine mammal habitat. EFH near the project area has 
been designated for a number of species. While the activities may cause 
some fish to leave the area of disturbance, temporarily impacting 
marine mammals' foraging opportunities, this would encompass a 
relatively small area of habitat leaving large areas of existing fish 
and marine mammal foraging habitat unaffected. As such, the impacts to 
marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-
term negative consequences.
    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 likelihood that PTS could occur in a limited number of animals is 
low, but acknowledged; (3) the anticipated incidences of Level B 
harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior or 
potential TTS; (4) the limited temporal and spatial impacts on marine 
mammals or their habitat; (5) the absence of any major haul outs or 
rookeries near the project area; and (6) 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 preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from ADOT&PF's Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project 
will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so,

[[Page 31426]]

in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our 
determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers 
of marine mammals.
    Table 11 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to 
received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B harassment 
for the proposed work at the Sand Point Dock Replacement Project. Our 
analysis shows that between <0.01 percent and 3.07 percent of the 
populations of affected stocks could be taken by harassment. Therefore, 
the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species 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. For pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions, 
occurring in the vicinity of the project site, there will almost 
certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these 
takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall 
regional stock.

             Table 11--Summary of the Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to Level A and Level B Harassment Noise Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Estimated number   Estimated number
                                          of individuals     of individuals
                                           potentially        potentially
          Species (DPS/stock)             exposed to the     exposed to the      DPS/stock abundance (DPS/stock)      Percent of population exposed to
                                             Level A            Level B                                                 Level A or Level B thresholds
                                            harassment         harassment
                                            threshold          threshold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion (wDPS)...............                  0                960  50,983..............................  1.88.
Harbor seal (Cook Inlet/Shelikof                       27                 53  27,386..............................  0.29.
 Strait).
Harbor porpoise (Gulf of Alaska)......                 16                 33  31,046..............................  0.16.
Dall's porpoise (Alaska)..............                  0                  4  83,400..............................  <0.01.
Killer whale (Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian                  0                 18  587 (transient).....................  3.07 (transient).
 Islands, and Bering Sea transient or                                         2,347 (resident)....................  0.76 (resident).
 Alaska resident).
Humpback whale \1\ (Central North                       2                 30  10,103..............................  0.32.
 Pacific).
Fin whale (Northeast Pacific).........                  0                  6  1,368 \2\...........................  0.44.
Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific)....                  0                  2  20,990..............................  <0.01.
Minke whale (Alaska)..................                  0                  3  2,020 \3\...........................  <0.01.
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................                 66                590  N/A.................................  N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Hawaii DPS is estimated to account for approximately 89 percent of all humpback whales in the Gulf of Alaska, whereas the Mexico and Western
  North Pacific DPSs account for approximately 10.5 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively (Wade et al. 2016; NMFS 2016). Therefore, an estimated 28
  animals from Hawaii DPS; 3 from Mexico DPS: And 1 from Western North Pacific DPS.
\2\ Based on 2010 survey of animals north and west of Kenai Peninsula in U.S. waters and is likely an underestimate (Muto et al. 2016b).
\3\ Based on 2010 survey on Eastern Bering Sea shelf. Considered provisional and not representative of abundance of entire stock (Muto et al. 2016a).
N/A: Not Applicable.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size 
of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. The proposed 
project is not known to occur in a subsistence hunting area. It is a 
developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. Additionally, 
ADOT&PF has spoken with local officials about concerns regarding 
impacts to subsistence uses and none were expressed. Therefore, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species 
or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence 
purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA. 
There are DPSs of two marine mammal species that are listed as 
endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the 
study area: The WNP DPS and Mexico DPS of humpback whale and the 
western DPS of Steller sea lion. NMFS will initiate formal consultation 
under Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS Alaska Regional Office. NMFS will 
issue a Biological Opinion that will analyze the effects to ESA listed 
species as well as critical habitat. The ESA consultation will conclude 
prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of 
the authorization.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to ADOT&PF for conducting pile driving and extraction 
activities associated with the reconstruction of the city dock in Sand 
Point, Alaska provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a 
draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is 
proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
    1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018, through July 
31, 2019.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with 
in-water construction work at the Sand Point City Dock Replacement 
Project in Sand Point, Alaska.
    3. General Conditions
    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of ADOT&PF, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    (b) The species and number of animals authorized for taking by 
Level A and Level B harassment are shown in Table 11 and include: 
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), 
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise

[[Page 31427]]

(Phocoenoides dalli), killer whale (Orcinus orca), gray whale 
(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin 
whale (Balaenoptera physalus) and minke whale (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata).
    (c) ADOT&PF shall conduct briefings between construction 
supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to 
the start of all pile driving activity.
    (d) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators), 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.
    (e) In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight 
hours.
    4. Prohibitions
    (a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the 
species listed under condition 3(b) above and by the numbers listed in 
Table 11 of this notice. The taking by death of these species or the 
taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine 
mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or 
revocation of this Authorization.
    5. Mitigation Measures
    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the 
following mitigation measures.
    (a) Shutdown Measures.
    (i) ADOT&PF shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is 
detected within or approaching the specified 100 m shutdown zone.
    (ii) Shutdown shall occur if low-frequency cetaceans (i.e. fin 
whale, gray whale, minke whale), mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e. killer 
whale), or high-frequency cetaceans (Dall's porpoise) approach relevant 
Level A take isopleths since Level A take of these species is not 
authorized.
    (ii) ADOT&PF shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any 
allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA and if 
such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area 
and are approaching their respective Level A or Level B harassment 
zone.
    (b) ADOT&PF shall establish Level A harassment zones as shown in 
Table 9.
    (i) For impact pile driving, the Level A harassment zone defaults 
to the isopleth corresponding to the number of piles planned for 
installation on a given day as shown in Table 9.
    (ii) After the first pile is driven, if no marine mammals have been 
observed within the radius of the corresponding Level A zone, then the 
Level A radius for the next pile shall be decreased to the next largest 
Level A radius. This pattern shall continue unless an animal is 
observed within the most recent shutdown zone radius, at which that 
specific shutdown radius shall remain in effect for the rest of the 
workday.
    (ii) If piles of varying sizes are installed in a single day, the 
radius of the Level A zone shall default to the isopleth for the 
largest pile being driven on that workday.
    (b) ADOT&PF shall establish Level B harassment zones for impact and 
vibratory driving as shown in Table 10.
    (c) Soft Start.
    (i) When there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without 
impact pile driving, the contractor shall initiate the driving with 
ramp-up procedures described below.
    (ii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide 
an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, 
followed by no less than a 30-second waiting period. This procedure 
shall be conducted a total of three times before impact pile driving 
begins.
    (d) Pre-Activity Monitoring.
    (i) Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or 
whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the 
observer(s) shall observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a 
period of 30 minutes.
    (ii) The shutdown zone shall be cleared when a marine mammal has 
not been observed within that zone for that 30-minute period.
    (iii) If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a 
soft-start can proceed if the animal is observed leaving the zone or 
has not been observed for 30 minutes (for cetaceans) or 15 minutes (for 
pinnipeds), even if visibility of Level B zone is impaired.
    (iv) If the Level B zone is not visible while work continues, 
exposures shall be recorded at the estimated exposure rate for each 
permitted species.
    (e) Pile caps shall be used during all impact driving.
    6. Monitoring
    (a) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified marine mammal 
observers (MMOs), with minimum qualifications as described previously 
in the Monitoring and Reporting section.
    (b) Two observers shall be on site and actively observing the 
shutdown and disturbance zones during all pile driving and extraction 
activities.
    (c) Observers shall use their naked eye with the aid of binoculars, 
big-eye binoculars and a spotting scope during all pile driving and 
extraction activities.
    (d) Monitoring location(s) shall be identified with the following 
characteristics:
    (i) Unobstructed view of pile being driven;
    (ii) Unobstructed view of all water within the Level A (if 
applicable) and Level B harassment zones for pile being driven.
    (f) If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' 
ability to make observations within the marine mammal shutdown zone of 
100 m (e.g., excessive wind or fog), pile installation and removal 
shall cease. Pile driving shall not be initiated until the entire 
shutdown zone is visible.
    (g) If a marine mammal authorized for Level A take is present 
within the Level A harassment zone, a Level A take would be recorded. 
If Level A take reaches the authorized limit, then pile installation 
would be stopped as these species approach the Level A harassment area 
to avoid additional take of these species.
    (h) If a marine mammal authorized for Level B take is present in 
the Level B harassment zone, pile driving activities or soft-start may 
begin and a Level B take would be recorded. If Level B take reaches the 
authorized limit, then pile installation would be stopped as these 
species approach to avoid additional take of these species.
    (i) Marine mammal location shall be determined using a rangefinder 
and a GPS or compass.
    (j) Ongoing in-water pile installation may be continued during 
periods when conditions such as low light, darkness, high sea state, 
fog, ice, rain, glare, or other conditions prevent effective marine 
mammal monitoring of the entire Level B harassment zone. MMOs would 
continue to monitor the visible portion of the Level B harassment zone 
throughout the duration of driving activities.
    (k) Post-construction monitoring shall be conducted for 30 minutes 
beyond the cessation of pile driving at end of day.
    7. Reporting
    The holder of this Authorization is required to:
    (a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA 
within ninety calendar days of the completion of marine mammal and 
acoustic monitoring. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, 
summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number 
of marine mammals that may have been harassed, including the total 
number extrapolated from observed animals across the entirety of 
relevant monitoring zones. A final report shall be prepared and 
submitted within thirty

[[Page 31428]]

days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. 
This report must contain the following:
    (i) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
    (ii) Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
    (iii) Record of 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;
    (iv) Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
    (v) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
    (vi) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
    (vii) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns,
    (viii) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and 
distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
    (ix) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
    (x) Other human activity in the area.
    (b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
    (i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, 
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, 
ADOT&PF shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the 
following information:
    1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    2. Name and type of vessel involved;
    3. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
    4. Description of the incident;
    5. Water depth;
    6. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    7. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound 
source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
    8. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    9. Fate of the animal(s); and
    10. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    ADOT&PF may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
    (ii) In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury 
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less 
than a moderate state of decomposition), ADOT&PF shall immediately 
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include 
the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may 
continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
shall work with ADOT&PF to determine whether additional mitigation 
measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
    (iii) In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is 
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), ADOT&PF shall report the incident 
to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. ADOT&PF 
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
    7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if 
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible 
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for ADOT&PF's Sand 
Point City Dock Replacement Project. Please include with your comments 
any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final 
decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-14157 Filed 7-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P