[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34632-34646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF535


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Gary Paxton Industrial Park 
Dock Modification Project

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

ACTION: Proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the City and Borough of Sitka 
(CBS) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to modifying 
the Gary Paxton Industrial Park (GPIP) dock in Sawmill Cove, Alaska. 
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting 
comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment 
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the 
specified activities.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than August 
25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments 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 online 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: Jaclyn Daly, 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 online 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.
    NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as an impact resulting from the specified activity:
    (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a 
level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) 
Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) 
directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical 
barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
    (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to 
increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs 
to be met.
    The 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).

[[Page 34633]]

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 our 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. We will 
review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to 
concluding our NEPA process and making a final decision on the IHA 
request.

Summary of Request

    On May 8, 2017, NMFS received a request from CBS for an IHA to take 
marine mammals incidental to the GPIP dock modification project in 
Sawmill Cove, Alaska. On May 26, 2017, NMFS requested additional 
information and CBS submitted a revised application on June 21, 2017, 
which NMFS deemed adequate and complete. CBS's request is for 
harassment only and NMFS concurs that serious injury or mortality is 
not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate.
    CBS is requesting take, by Level A and B harassment, of six species 
of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal within Sawmill 
Cove, Alaska. Pile driving and removal would occur for 16 days from 
October 1 through December 31, 2017. No subsequent IHAs would be 
necessary to complete the project.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    CBS is modifying an existing marine and commercial industrial site 
by removing existing aging docks and installing a new floating dock, 
small craft float, and transfer bridge. To do so, CBS must remove 
existing abandoned, creosote-treated piles and install new piles. Pile 
driving and pile removal associated with this work may result in 
auditory injury (Level A harassment) and behavioral harassment (Level B 
harassment). All pile driving and removal would take place at the 
existing dock facility and occur for 16 days. The purpose of the 
project is to provide deep water port access, meet modern safety 
standards, and promote marine commerce in the region.

Dates and Duration

    The proposed IHA would be valid from October 1 through December 31, 
2017. Removing old timber piles with a vibratory hammer could occur for 
up to 5 hours per day for 6 days. Removing the temporary template piles 
could occur for up to 1 hour on 2 additional days. Vibratory pile 
driving could occur for up to 2 hours per day for 6 days to install the 
permanent piles while impact pile driving could occur for up to 10 
minutes a day for proofing following vibratory pile driving. In total, 
pile activities are expected to occur for 16 days from October 1 
through December 31, 2017.

Specified Geographic Region

    Sawmill Cove is a small body of water located near Sitka, Alaska at 
the mouth of Silver Bay, which opens to the Sitka Sound and Gulf of 
Alaska (see figures 1 and 2 in application). Bathymetry in Sawmill Cove 
shows a fairly even seafloor that gradually falls to a depth of 
approximately 50 feet (ft) (15 meters (m)). To the southeast, Silver 
Bay is approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) wide, 5.5 mi 
(8.9 km) long, and 150-250 ft (46-76 m) deep. The bay is uniform with 
few rock outcroppings or islands. To the southwest, the Eastern Channel 
opens to Sitka Sound, dropping off to depths of 400 ft (120 m) 
approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the project site.
    Sawmill Cove is an active marine commercial and industrial area. 
The dock footprint is previously disturbed with abandoned dock 
structures associated with the former Alaska Pulp Mill. Silver Bay 
Seafoods' processing plant is located adjacent to the project site. 
This plant processes herring and salmon (primarily pink salmon).

Detailed Description of Specific Activities

    The purpose of the project is to construct a multipurpose docking 
area that will serve a wide variety of vessels, provide deep water port 
access to the GPIP, meet modern standards for safety, and promote 
marine commerce in the region. The proposed work includes removing 280 
abandoned creosote-treated piles located in shallow water, installing a 
large floating deep-water dock (a repurposed barge measuring 250 ft 
(76.2 m) x 74 ft (22.6 m) x 19 ft (5.8 m)), small craft float (12 ft 
(3.7 m) x 100 ft (30.5 m)), and v-shaped float (see Figure 4 and 5 in 
CBS's application). For access, CBS would also construct a transfer 
bridge and gangway. To stabilize the shoreline, CBS would install an 
abutment and retaining wall. Materials and equipment, including the 
floating dock, would be transported to the project site by barge. While 
work is conducted in the water, anchored barges would be used to stage 
construction materials and equipment.
    Pile removal and installation are the only activities that may 
harass marine mammals. To facilitate the work, CBS would construct two 
dolphin structures to support the floating dock. Each dolphin requires 
6 temporary 30-in steel piles to act as a template for installing the 
permanent piles, 2 permanent 30-in steel batter piles (piles driven at 
an angle with the vertical to resist a lateral force) to act as the 
``legs'' of the dolphin, and a single 48-in vertical steel piles which 
would constitute the center of the dolphin structure. CBS would use an 
ICE 44B vibratory hammer (12,450 pounds static weight) and a Delmag D46 
diesel hammer (max energy 107,280 ft-pounds) to install piles. The 
existing old timber piles (12-in and 16-in timber) associated with the 
old dock would be removed by the vibratory hammer if they cannot be 
pulled out mechanically. The 12 temporary piles used for the template 
would also be removed following dock completion.
    The six permanent piles (four 30-in and two 48-in) would be driven 
through approximately 60-70 ft (18-21 m) of unconsolidated sand with a 
vibratory hammer operated at a reduced energy setting, impacted into 
bedrock, and then anchored into 25-40 ft (7.6-12.2 m) of bedrock with a 
rock anchor drill and grout. To anchor the piles, a 10-inch casing 
would be inserted in the center of the pile and a 15.2 centimeter (cm) 
(6-in) rock anchor drill would be lowered into the casing and used to 
drill into bedrock. Rock fragments would be removed through the top of 
the casing. Finally, the drill and casing would be removed and the hole 
would be filled with grout to secure the pile to bedrock. The casing 
acts like a cofferdam and would block noise; therefore, drilling is not 
expected to result in harassment and is not discussed further.
    CBS would use only a vibratory hammer to install the 12 temporary 
template piles (i.e., no impact hammering). Once the project is 
complete, CBS would remove all 12 temporary piles with the vibratory 
hammer.
    The duration of pile driving and removal varies by pile type (see 
Table 1 in CBS's application). CBS would remove up to 60 of the old 
timber piles

[[Page 34634]]

per day with a vibratory hammer (5 minutes for each pile) if they 
cannot be removed mechanically. In total, removing the timber piles 
could require using a vibratory hammer for up to 5 hours per day for 6 
days. Installing each of the 30-inch temporary piles used to set the 
template would require 30 minutes of vibratory driving and CBS 
anticipates installing up to 6 per day (3 hours total). Removing each 
of these piles is anticipated to take 10 minutes per pile for a total 
of 1 hour per day. Installing the permanent 30-in piles used to 
construct each dolphin would require approximately 2 hours of vibratory 
driving followed by 10 minutes (400 strikes) of impact hammering; one 
30-in pile would be installed per day. The 48-in piles require similar 
installation periods (a maximum 2 hours of vibratory followed by 10 
minutes (400 strikes) of impact); one pile would be installed per day. 
The project schedule is set such that pile driving would occur, at 
minimum, every other day when the permanent piles are installed (i.e., 
there would be at least one day break between installing each pile 
where other activities such as welding would occur). CBS would do the 
work from October 1 through December 31, 2017.
    CBS would carry out pile driving in a manner designed to reduce 
impacts to marine mammals. The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting measures are described in detail later in this document 
(please see ``Proposed Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and 
Reporting'').

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more 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 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Sawmill Cove and Silver Bay and summarizes information related to the 
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA 
and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is 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 (as described in 
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    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 or survey 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. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. 2016 SARs (e.g., Muto et al. 2017). All values presented in 
Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and 
are available in the 2016 SARs (Muto et al., 2017).
    NMFS identifies 14 species may potentially occur in the action 
area: humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale (Balaenoptera 
physalis), North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), gray whale 
(Eschrichtius robustus), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), 
sperm whale (Physeter macrophalus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), 
Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Cuvier's 
beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), harbor porpoise (Phocoena 
phocoena), Dall's porpoise (P. dalli), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 
jubatus), Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) and Pacific harbor 
seal (Phoca vitulina). Of these, one pinniped (Northern fur seal) and 
eight cetacean species and are considered extralimital species (i.e., 
those that do not normally occur in a given area but for which there 
are one or more occurrence records): The North Pacific right whale, 
gray whale, minke whale, fin whale, sperm whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, 
Pacific white-sided dolphin, and Dall's porpoise (Straley and Pendall, 
2017). Given this, no take is requested for these species and they are 
not considered further in this proposed IHA.

                                         Table 1--Marine Mammals Expected To Occur Within the Action Area, Sitka
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Stock abundance
                                                                             ESA/MMPA  status;   Nbest,  (CV, Nmin,                               Annual
           Common name               Scientific name         MMPA Stock        strategic  (Y/       most recent          Occurrence       PBR      M/SI
                                                                                  N)T \1\        abundance survey)                                 \3\
                                                                                                        \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Family Balaenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale...................  Megaptera            Central North        E, D,Y             10,103 (0.3, 7,890,  Frequent.........       83       21
                                    novaeangliae.        Pacific.                                2006).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale.....................  Orcinus orca.......  Alaska Resident....  -, N               2,347 (N/A, 2,347,   Infrequent.......     23.4        1
                                                                                                 2012) \4\.
                                                        Northern Resident..  -, N               261 (N/A, 261,                             1.96        0
                                                                                                 2011) \4\.
                                                        Gulf of Alaska,      -, N               587 (N/A, 587,                              5.9      0.6
                                                         Aleutian Islands,                       2012) \4\.
                                                         Bering Sea
                                                         Transient.
                                                        West Coast           -, N               243 (N/A, 243,                              2.4        1
                                                         Transient.                              2009) \4\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Family Phocoenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise..................  Phocoena phocoena..  Southeast Alaska...  -, Y               975 (0.10, 896,      Infrequent.......  8.9 \5\   34 \5\
                                                                                                 2012)\5\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 34635]]

 
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion.................  Eumatopia jubatus..  Western U.S........  E, D; Y            49,497 (N/A,         Common...........      297      233
                                                                                                 49,497, 2014).
                                                        Eastern U.S........  -, D, Y            60,131-74,448......                       1,645     92.3
                                                                                                (N/A, 36,551, 2013)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal......................  ...................  Sitka/Chatham        -, N               14,855 (-,13,212,    Common...........      555       77
                                                         Straight.                               2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A).
\3\ 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).
\4\ N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs.
\5\ In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland Southeast Alaska waters (these
  abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). The calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the
  entire stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside waters of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as
  currently designated. The Annual M/SI is for the entire stock, including coastal waters.

Pinnipeds
Steller Sea Lion
    The Steller sea lion is the largest of the eared seals, ranging 
along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, with 
centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and 
Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-
wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Subsequently, 
NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for the 
species as a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haul-outs and 
rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, 
and three large offshore foraging areas (58 FR 45269; August 27, 1993). 
In 1997, NMFS reclassified Steller sea lions as two distinct population 
segments (DPSs) based on genetic studies and other information (62 FR 
24345; May 5, 1997). Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur 
west of 144[deg] W. (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western DPS 
(wDPS), while all others comprise the eastern DPS (eDPS); however, 
there is regular movement of both DPSs across this boundary (Jemison et 
al. 2013). Upon this reclassification, the wDPS became listed as 
endangered while the eDPS remained as threatened (62 FR 24345; May 5, 
1997). In November 2013, the eDPS was delisted (78 FR 66140). Based on 
recent observations of branded animals in Southeast Alaska, NMFS 
estimates that 98 percent of Steller seas lion occurring within the 
action area belong to the eDPS, leaving 2 percent to the wDPS (Suzie 
Teerlink, pers. comm, May 19, 2017). The current abundance estimate for 
the eDPS in Alaska is between 60,131-74,448, and 49,497 animals for the 
wDPS (Muto et al. 2017).
    Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and pelagic waters where they 
are opportunistic predators. They feed primarily on a wide variety of 
fishes and cephalopods. Because the action area contains a herring 
processing plant, animals may linger in the area to feed 
opportunistically. However, strong residency time may be limited 
because the plant does not operate from October through March (when 
pile activities would occur). Anecdotal evidence from staff at the fish 
processing plant indicate that multiple (up to 10) Steller sea lions 
may reside in the area for multiple days (pers. comm, Solstice, July 5, 
2017).
    Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take 
refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally used rookeries 
to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or sand 
beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs. There are no established haul-outs in 
the action area; however, individuals in the action area may rest on 
rocks and along the shoreline intermittently. No critical habitat for 
this species is designated in Southeast Alaska.
    Steller sea lions are included in Alaska subsistence harvests. 
Since subsistence harvest surveys began in 1992, the number of 
households hunting and harvesting sea lions has remained relatively 
constant at low levels (Wolf et al. 2013). In 2012, the community of 
Sitka had an estimated subsistence take of 1 Steller sea lion (Wolf et 
al. 2013).
Harbor Seal
    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. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 
glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh 
waters. Harbor seals are generally non-migratory, with local movements 
associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food 
availability, and reproduction.
    Harbor seals in Alaska are partitioned into 12 separate stocks 
based largely on genetic structure: (1) The Aleutian Islands stock, (2) 
the Pribilof Islands stock, (3) the Bristol Bay stock, (4) the North 
Kodiak stock, (5) the South Kodiak stock, (6) the Prince William Sound 
stock, (7) the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock, (8) the Glacier Bay/Icy 
Strait stock, (9) the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock, (10) the 
Sitka/Chatham stock, (11) the Dixon/Cape Decision stock, and (12) the 
Clarence Strait stock. Only the Sitka/Chatham stock is considered in 
this proposed IHA. The range of this stock includes Cape Bingham south 
to Cape Ommaney and the adjacent coastal and inshore waters, including 
the project area.
    Within the action area, harbor seals are present year round with 
peak abundance February through April (Straley and Pendell 2017). 
Monthly group size ranges from 0-5 animals but

[[Page 34636]]

in low numbers. Average group size is 1-2 individuals (Straley and 
Pendell 2017). Similar to Steller sea lions, harbor seals may linger in 
the action area for multiple days; however, no designated haul-outs are 
within close proximity.
    Harbor seals are included in Alaska subsistence harvests. Since 
subsistence harvest surveys began in 1992, there have been declines in 
the number of households hunting and harvesting seals in Southeast 
Alaska (Wolf et al. 2013). In 2012, the community of Sitka had an 
estimated subsistence take of 49 harbor seals (Wolf et al. 2013).
Cetaceans
Humpback Whale
    The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins. In 
winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical 
waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and migrate to high 
latitudes in the summer to feed. The historic summer feeding range of 
humpback whales in the North Pacific encompassed 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 (Johnson and Wolman 1984).
    Under the MMPA, there are three stocks of humpback whales in the 
North Pacific: (1) The California/Oregon/Washington and Mexico stock, 
consisting of winter/spring populations in coastal Central America and 
coastal Mexico which migrate to the coast of California to southern 
British Columbia in summer/fall; (2) the central North Pacific stock, 
consisting of winter/spring populations of the Hawaiian Islands which 
migrate primarily to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the 
Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; and (3) the 
western North Pacific stock, consisting of winter/spring populations 
off Asia which migrate primarily to Russia and the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands. The central North Pacific stock is the only stock that is 
found near the project activities.
    On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final rule dividing the 
globally listed endangered species into 14 DPSs, removing the worldwide 
species-level listing, and in its place listing four DPSs as endangered 
and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; effective October 11, 2016). 
Two DPSs (Hawaii and Mexico) are potentially present within the action 
area. The Hawaii DPS is not listed and the Mexico DPS is listed as 
threatened under the ESA. The Hawaii DPS is estimated to contain 11,398 
animals where the Mexico DPS is estimated to contain 3,264 animals.
    Within the action area, humpback whales are seen most frequently 
from September through February although sighting may extend into April 
(Straley and Pendell 2017). Survey data indicates that the typical 
group size for humpback whales in the area is between 2 and 4 whales, 
and approximately 2.18 whales occur in the area per day. The maximum 
group size is unknown. When present in the area, humpback whales are 
foraging primarily on herring.
Killer Whale
    Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the 
world, but the highest densities occur in colder and more productive 
waters found at high latitudes. Killer whales are found throughout the 
North Pacific, and occur along the entire Alaska coast, in British 
Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts of 
Washington, Oregon, and California (Muto et al. 2017).
    Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements, 
and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized: 
(1) The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern Resident 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, and (8) the Hawaiian stock. Only 
the Alaska resident; Northern resident; Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient (Gulf of Alaska transient); and the 
West coast transient stocks are considered in this application because 
other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration. Any 
of these four stocks could be seen in the action area; however, the 
Northern resident stock is most likely to occur in the area. The trend 
for the Northern resident stock is an increasing population with an 
average of 2.1 percent annual increase over a 36 year time period. For 
all other stocks, population trends are unknown.
    In the action area, killer whales are known to occur but there 
sightings are unpredictable. Between 0 and 12 killer whales can occur 
within the project area with typical group size of between four and 
eight whales with a maximum group size of eight (Straley and Pendell 
2017).
Harbor Porpoise
    The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic 
waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point 
Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoise 
primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most frequently in waters 
less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). They may occasionally be 
found in deeper offshore waters.
    In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three 
stocks, based primarily on geography: (1) The Southeast Alaska stock--
occurring from the northern border of British Columbia to Cape 
Suckling, Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock--occurring from Cape 
Suckling to Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea stock--occurring 
throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass. 
Only the Southeast Alaska stock is considered in this application 
because the other stocks are not found in the geographic area under 
consideration. The 2016 SAR for this stock further delineated 
population estimates (Muto et al. 2017). The total estimated annual 
level of human-caused mortality and serious injury for Southeast Alaska 
harbor porpoise (n = 34) exceeds the calculated PBR of 8.9 porpoise. 
However, the calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the entire 
stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion 
(the inside 7 of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as 
currently designated. Because the total stock abundance estimates are 
more than 8 years old (with the exception of the 2010-2012 abundance 
estimates provided for the inland waters of Southeast Alaska) and the 
frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury in U.S. commercial 
fisheries throughout Southeast Alaska is not known, the Southeast 
Alaska stock of harbor porpoise is classified as a strategic stock. 
Population trends and status of this stock relative to its Optimum 
Sustainable Population are currently unknown.
    There are no subsistence use of this species; however, as noted 
above, entanglement in fishing gear contributes to human-caused 
mortality and serious injury. Muto et al. (2017) also reports harbor 
porpoise are vulnerable to physical modifications of nearshore habitats 
resulting from urban and industrial development (including waste 
management and nonpoint source runoff) and activities such as 
construction of docks and other over-water structures, filling of 
shallow areas,

[[Page 34637]]

dredging, and noise (Linnenschmidt et al. 2013).
    In the action area, harbor porpoises are considered infrequent but 
could occur during any month with average group size of five 
individuals; maximum group size is eight individuals (Straley and 
Pendell 2017).
Marine Mammal Hearing
    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, 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 directly measured or estimated hearing ranges 
on the basis of available behavioral response 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 decibel (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 associated frequencies along 
with likely best hearing ranges are provided 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). For more detail concerning these groups and 
associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 
available information.
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 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;
     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; 
and
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 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 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    Five marine mammal species (three cetacean and two pinniped 
species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed 
survey activities. Of the cetacean species that may be present, the 
humpback whale is classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., 
mysticete species), the killer whale is classified as a mid-frequency 
cetacean (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and the sperm whale), 
and the harbor porpoise is classified as high-frequency cetaceans 
(i.e., porpoises and Kogia spp.). The Steller sea lion is classified as 
an otariid while the harbor seal is classified as a phocid.

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 may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section 
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the 
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. 
The ``Negligible Impact Analysis 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 these 
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals 
and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal 
species or stocks.

Acoustic Effects

    The ADOT's construction work involving in-water pile driving and 
pile removal could effect marine mammals by exposing them to elevated 
noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area leading to an 
auditory threshold shifts (TS). NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as ``a 
change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a 
specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level'' (NMFS, 2016). The amount of 
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB (ANSI 1995, Yost 2007). 
A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2016), there 
are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, 
including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., 
impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed 
for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, 
the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours 
to days), the frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), 
the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species 
relative to the signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses 
sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 
2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., 
spatial, temporal, and spectral). When analyzing the auditory effects 
of noise exposure, it is often helpful to broadly categorize sound as 
either impulsive--noise with high peak sound pressure, short duration, 
fast rise-time, and broad frequency content--or non-impulsive. When 
considering auditory effects, vibratory pile driving is considered to 
be non-impulsive source while impact pile driving is treated as an 
impulsive source.
    Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)-- NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2016). Available data from 
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold 
shift approximates PTS onset (see NMFS 2016 for review).
    Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--NMFS defines TTS as a temporary, 
reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2016). Based on data from 
cetacean TTS measurements (see Finneran 2014 for a review), a TTS of 6 
dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any 
day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal 
hearing

[[Page 34638]]

ability (Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 
2002).
    Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration 
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in 
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging 
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory 
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily 
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal 
is traveling through the open ocean, 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. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well 
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that 
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though 
likely not without cost.

Behavioral Harassment

    Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the 
potential to behavioral disturb marine mammals. Disturbance may result 
in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per 
surfacing, moving direction and/or speed, reduced/increased vocal 
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such 
as socializing or feeding), visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping), avoidance of 
areas where sound sources are located, and/or flight responses. 
Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water 
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). These potential behavioral 
responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and 
reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, 
current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of 
day, and many other factors (Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 
2003; Southall et al. 2007). 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).
    In 2016, Alaska DOT documented observations of marine mammals 
during construction activities (i.e., pile driving and down-hole 
drilling) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636 for Final IHA 
Federal Register notice). In the marine mammal monitoring report for 
that project (ABR 2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were observed within 
the Level B disturbance zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., 
documented as Level B take). Of these, 19 individuals demonstrated an 
alert behavior, seven were fleeing, and 19 swam away from the project 
site. All other animals (98 percent) were engaged in activities such as 
milling, foraging, or fighting and did not change their behavior. In 
addition, two sea lions approached within 20 meters of active vibratory 
pile driving activities. Three harbor seals were observed within the 
disturbance zone during pile-driving activities; none of them displayed 
disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer whales and three harbor porpoise 
were also observed within the Level B harassment zone during pile 
driving. The killer whales were travelling or milling while all harbor 
porpoises were travelling. No signs of disturbance were noted for 
either of these species. Given the similarities in activities and 
habitat and the fact the same species are involved, we expect similar 
behavioral responses of marine mammals to the specified activity.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

    The project would occur in an active marine commercial and 
industrial area. The dock footprint is previously disturbed with 
abandoned dock structures associate with the former Alaska Pulp Mill in 
the area. Removing the timber piles would likely benefit the habitat by 
removing creosote-treated wood. Construction activities at the GPIP 
dock could have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their 
prey as a result of elevated noise levels from pile driving and 
removal; however, any impacts are expected to be minor or temporary. 
Impact pile driving, the loudest noise source, would last for only 10 
minutes per day for six non-consecutive days. No dredging or other 
construction-related activities that could increase turbidity beyond 
the localized impacts from pile driving would occur.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through 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 type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, Section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as the 
use of pile hammers has the potential to result in disruption of 
behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. As described above, 
TTS is also a form of Level B harassment. There is some potential for 
slight auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result (e.g., PTS 
onset), primarily for mysticetes and/or high frequency species. 
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species and 
otariids (i.e., Steller sea lions). The proposed mitigation and 
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such 
taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no mortality 
is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we 
describe how the take is estimated.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area 
or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; 
(3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified 
areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe 
these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience,

[[Page 34639]]

demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict 
(Southall et al. 2007, Ellison et al. 2011). Based on what the 
available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold 
based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most 
activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on 
received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in 
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater 
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for continuous (e.g. vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) 
sources. CBS's proposed activity includes the use of continuous 
(vibratory hammer) and impulsive (impact hammer) sources, and therefore 
the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to 
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine 
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
    These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the 
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both 
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final technical guidance, 
and are provided in Table 2. The references, analysis, and methodology 
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

 Table 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      PTS Onset acoustic thresholds *
                                             (received level)
          Hearing group          ---------------------------------------
                                       Impulsive         Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans....  Cell 1............  Cell 2
                                  Lpk,flat: 219 dB..  LE,LF,24h: 199 dB
                                  LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans....  Cell 3............  Cell 4
                                  Lpk,flat: 230 dB..  LE,MF,24h: 198 dB
                                  LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans...  Cell 5............  Cell 6
                                  Lp,flat: 202 dB...  LE,HF,24H: 173 dB
                                  LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)             Cell 7............  Cell 8
 (Underwater).                    Lpk,flat: 218 dB..  LE,PW,24h: 201 dB
                                  LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)            Cell 9............  Cell 10
 (Underwater).                    Lpk,flat: 232 dB..  LE,OW,24h: 219 dB
                                  LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever
  results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-
  impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure
  level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds
  should also be considered.
* Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [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 pak 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.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
    When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition 
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically 
challenging to predict because of the duration component (i.e., 
accumulation of energy) in the new thresholds as well as the weighting 
functions, we developed an optional User Spreadsheet that includes 
tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction 
with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note 
that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used 
for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically 
going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some 
degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the 
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. We consider the calculated isopleths in 
conjunction with other operational or biological information to arrive 
at reasonable estimates of potential Level A harassment. For stationary 
sources such as pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the 
closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance 
the whole duration of the activity (i.e., accumulated all energy output 
by the activity in a 24-hr period), it would incur some degree of PTS. 
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and the resulting isopleths are 
provided in Table 3.

[[Page 34640]]



           Table 3--Technical Guidance User Spreadsheet Inputs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      User Spreadsheet Input        Vibratory Hammer     Impact Hammer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used.............  A. Non-Impulse-     E.1. Impact pile
                                    Stat-Cont.          driving
                                  --------------------------------------
Source Level (Single Strike/shot                See Table 4
 SEL).
                                  --------------------------------------
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)  2.5...............  2.0
a) Number of strikes per pile....  N/A...............  400
a) Number of piles per day.......  N/A...............  1
Activity Duration (hours) within   See Table 4.......  N/A
 24-h period.
Propagation (xLogR)..............  15................  15
Distance of source level           10................  10
 measurement (meters).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distances to Level A and Level B thresholds were calculated based 
on various source levels for a given activity and pile type (e.g., 
impact hammering 48 in pile, vibratory removal of timber piles) and, 
for Level A harassment, accounted for the maximum duration of that 
activity per day using the spreadsheet tool developed by NMFS. For 
Level B harassment areas, distances were calculated using a practical 
spreading loss constant (15 log R) and source level. Once the distances 
to thresholds were calculated, total ensonified area was calculated. 
For all Level B and some Level A thresholds, land was a limiting factor 
in determining area. Table 4 contains all calculated distances to Level 
A and B harassment thresholds.

                                      Table 4--Distances to Level A and B Thresholds and Resulting Ensonified Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Distance (m) to Level A and Level B Thresholds
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Estimated                                 Level A \2\
                                                       source level  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source activity and  duration              at 10 meters                                      High-                               Level B all
                                                         (dB) \1\      Low-frequency   Mid-frequency   frequency                               species
                                                                       cetaceans (m)   cetaceans (m)   cetaceans    Phocid (m)  Otariid (m)
                                                                                                          (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 and 16-inch wood removal (5 hours per day).......             155             8.0             0.7         11.8          4.8          0.3        2,154
30-inch steel temporary installation (3 hours per                166            30.6             2.7         45.3         18.6          1.3   \3\ 11,659
 day)...............................................
30-inch steel temporary removal (1 hour per day)....             166            14.7             1.3         21.8          8.9          0.6   \3\ 11,659
30-inch steel permanent installation (2 hours per                166            23.4             2.1         34.5         14.2          1.0   \3\ 11,659
 day)...............................................
48-inch steel permanent installation (2 hours per              168.2            32.7             2.9         48.4         19.9          1.4   \3\ 16,343
 day)...............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel permanent installation (10 minutes per             196           859.2            30.6      1,023.5        459.8         33.5        859.2
 day)...............................................
48-inch steel permanent installation (10 minutes per           198.6         1,280.7            45.5      1,525.5        685.4         49.9      1,280.7
 day)...............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source levels (SLs) are derived from the Port of Anchorage test pile project (Austin et al. 2016, CH2M 2016) and Alaska Department of Transportation
  hydroacoustic studies (Denes et al. 2016). 30'' pile driving SLs were used as a proxy for pile removal.
\2\ The values provided here represent the distances at which an animal may incur PTS if that animal remained at that distance for the entire duration
  of the activity. For example, a humpback whale (low frequency cetacean) would have to remain 8 meters from timber piles being removed for 5 hours for
  PTS to occur.
\3\ These represent calculated distances based on practical spreading model; however, land at the end of Silver Bay obstructs underwater sound
  transmission at approximately 9,500 m from the source.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section, we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group structure of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    Data on marine mammals in the project area is limited. Land-based 
surveys conducted at Sitka's Whale Park occurred from September through 
May, annually, from 1994 to 2000 (Straley and Pendell, 2017). From 2000 
to 2016, Straley also collected marine mammal data from small vessels 
throughout the year. There are no density data available; therefore, 
probability of occurrence based on group sightings and typical group 
sizes were used in take calculations (Table 5).

[[Page 34641]]



 Table 5--Marine Mammal Data From Land-Based Surveys at Sitka's Whale Park From September Through May, Annually,
                                                 From 1994-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Avg. count per month     Typical group
          Common name              Months sighted         (Oct, Nov, Dec)             size        Max group size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.................  September-April...  50, 116, 101.............  2-4............  unknown
Killer whale...................  October-March.....  12, 12, 4................  4-8............  8
Harbor porpoise................  September, March,   7, 0, 0..................  5..............  8
                                  April.
Steller sea lion...............  September-April...  10, 12, 107..............  1-2............  100
Harbor seal....................  September-April...  1, 1, 0..................  1-2............  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Only months when the project would occur are included here. For full counts, please see section 4 in CBS's
  application.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    Because density data are not available for this area, we used group 
sighting data as an indicator of how often marine mammals may be 
present during the 16 days of pile driving/removing activity in 
consideration of the Level A and B harassment zones. We also considered 
typical group size to determine how many animals may be present on any 
given day. For all species, we used the following equation to estimate 
the number of animals, by species, potentially taken from exposure to 
pile driving and removing noise: Estimated Take = Number of animals x 
number of days animals are expected during pile activity by type (Table 
6).
    The Sitka Whale Park surveys found humpback whale groups may 
include up to four individuals. Based on sighting frequency which 
indicates this species is present more often during winter months when 
the project would occur, we conservatively estimate that a group of 4 
humpback whales may occur within the Level A harassment zone (1,210 m 
and 1,803 m for 30-in and 48-in pile driving respectively) on any two 
of the six days of impact pile driving and in the Level B harassment 
zone on any of the 16 days of pile activities. Therefore, Level A take 
equals 4 whales times 2 days while Level B take equals 4 whales times 
16 days.
    For killer whales, it is assumed eight killer whales could be 
present within the Level B harassment zone on any two days of pile 
activity; therefore, we are proposing to authorize 16 takes. No Level A 
take is anticipated due to proposed shut down mitigation measures (see 
Mitigation section).
    Harbor porpoise typically travel in groups of five and we 
anticipate a group could enter the Level A zone on two of the six days 
of impact pile driving and another group could be present within the 
Level B zone on two days of the project. Therefore, we anticipate ten 
Level A takes (five animals x two days) and ten Level B takes (five 
animals x two days) of harbor porpoise.
    Steller sea lions are common in the area during the proposed work 
with one to ten animals present on any given day of work. We assume 
that on any day of the 16 days of pile driving, 10 Steller sea lions 
could be present within Sawmill Cove and another group of 4 Steller sea 
lions could be present in the farther reaches of the disturbance zone, 
for a combined Level B exposure of 14 Steller sea lions on each day of 
pile driving. Therefore, over the course of 16 days of pile driving, we 
anticipate 224 sea lions may be taken (14 animals x 16 days); however, 
as described above, this is likely representative of the number of 
exposures, not individuals taken. No Level A takes of Steller sea lions 
are anticipated from impact pile driving due to the small harassment 
zone and mitigation shut down measures (see Mitigation section).
    Harbor seals are found in the action area throughout the year but 
in low numbers. Group size is typically one to two animals. It is 
anticipated that two harbor seals could be present within the Level A 
zone every other day of the 6 days of impact pile driving. It is also 
assumed that a group of 2 harbor seals could be encountered in the 
Level B disturbance zone during the 16 days of pile driving. Therefore, 
we anticipate 6 Level A takes (2 animals x 3 days) and 32 Level B takes 
(2 animals x 16 days) of harbor seals.
    Duration is a strong driver in identifying distances to Level A 
thresholds and this must be balanced with expected animal movement. 
Although the Technical Guidance user spreadsheet identified Level A 
harassment distances from vibratory pile driving and removal, these 
distances are incredibly close to the source and an animal would have 
to remain that close for extended durations (1-5 hours). In contrast, 
impact threshold distances are much larger and consider only 10 minutes 
(400 strikes) of activity, making a Level A take more probabilistic. 
The CBS proposed to shut down operations should a marine mammal enter 
the Level A zone (0.3 to 48.4 m depending on pile type and if activity 
is vibratory pile driving or removing) to avoid Level A take. Because 
we do not expect a marine mammal to remain at these close distances for 
long periods of time, we do not believe the potential for Level A take 
exists and; therefore we are not authorizing Level A take from 
vibratory pile activities and we are not requiring CBS shut down during 
any activities involving a vibratory hammer unless an animal comes 
within 10 m which is a zone established to prevent non-auditory 
physical injury.
    For harbor seals and Steller sea lions, the number of animals 
potentially present likely reflects the same individuals occurring over 
multiple days; therefore the number of takes likely represents 
exposures versus individuals. For all cetacean species, it is likely 
the calculated takes do reflect the number of individuals exposed 
because they would be expected to be transiting through the action 
area, not lingering like pinnipeds.
    For purposes of ESA consultation, we looked at probability of 
Steller sea lions and humpback whales from each DPS that may be found 
in the action area. For Steller sea lions, we determined the 
probability of an animal being from the wDPS to be 2 percent while the 
remaining animals would be from the eDPS (see Description of Marine 
Mammals section). We also calculated the number of humpback whales that 
could be from the Mexico and Hawaii DPS. Wade et al. (2016) analyzed 
humpback whale movements throughout the North Pacific Ocean between 
winter breeding areas and summer feeding areas, using a comprehensive 
photo-identification study of humpback whales in 2004-2006 during the 
SPLASH project (Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and 
Status of Humpbacks). The analysis found that humpback whales off 
Southeast Alaska are most likely to be from the Hawaii DPS (93.9%

[[Page 34642]]

probability) while the Mexico DPS whales have a 6.1 percent probability 
of occurrence.

        Table 6--Estimated Take of Marine Mammals, by Stock, Incidental to Pile Removal and Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Percent of
              Common name                   Stock/DPS (Nbest)         Level A         Level B      stock (Level
                                                                                                        B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale........................  Hawaii DPS (11,398).....               7              60             0.5
                                        Mexico DPS (3,264)......               1               4            0.12
Killer whale..........................  Alaska Resident (2,347).               0              16          * 0.68
                                        Northern Resident (261).  ..............  ..............           * 6.1
                                        Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian  ..............  ..............           * 2.7
                                         Islands, Bering Sea
                                         (587).
                                        West Coast Transient      ..............  ..............           * 6.5
                                         (243).
Harbor porpoise.......................  Southeast Alaska (975)..              10              10             1.0
Steller sea lion......................  Western U.S. (36,551)...               0               5            0.14
                                        Eastern U.S. (49,497)...               0             219            0.44
Harbor seal...........................  Sitka/Chatham Straight                 6              32            0.22
                                         (14,855).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These percentages assume all 16 takes comes from any given stock.

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 can 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.
    The following mitigation measures, designed to minimize noise 
exposure, would be included in the IHA:
     CBS will first attempt to direct pull old, abandoned piles 
that would minimize noise input into the marine environment; if those 
efforts prove to be ineffective, they may proceed with a vibratory 
hammer.
     CBS will operate the vibratory hammer at a reduced energy 
setting (30 to 50 percent of its rated energy).
     CBS will use a softening material (e.g., high-density 
polyethylene (HDPE) or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene on all 
templates to eliminate steel on steel noise generation.
     A ``soft start'' technique will be used at the beginning 
of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the 
immediate area to leave before hammering at full energy. CBS is 
proposing to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at 
reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will 
be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, CBS will 
be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact 
hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, 
then two subsequent 3-strike sets. If any marine mammal is sighted 
within a shut-down zone during the 30 minute survey prior to pile 
driving, or during the soft start, CBS will delay pile-driving until 
the animal is confirmed to have moved outside and on a path away from 
the area or if 15 minutes (for pinnipeds or small cetaceans) or 30 
minutes (for large cetaceans) have elapsed since the last sighting of 
the marine mammal within the shut-downzone. This soft-start will be 
applied prior to beginning pile driving activities each day or when 
pile driving hammers have been idle for more than 30 minutes.
     CBS will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer to the 
maximum extent possible (i.e., until a desired depth is achieved or to 
refusal) prior to using an impact hammer. CBS will also use the minimum 
impact hammer energy needed to safely install the piles.
     CBS will implement the shut-down zones identified in Table 
7 to minimize harassment.

[[Page 34643]]



                Table 7--Proposed Pile Driving Shut Down Zones Designed To Minimize Level A Take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Shutdown zones in meters
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Low-frequency                   High-frequency                       Otariid
            Source                 cetaceans     Mid-frequency      cetaceans         Phocid         pinnipeds
                                   (humpback       cetaceans         (harbor         pinnipeds     (Steller sea
                                    whale)      (killer whale)      porpoise)      (harbor seal)       lion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All...........................                                        10 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Impact Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel (installation)..         \1\ 200              50           \1\ 200         \1\ 150              50
48-inch steel (installation)..         \1\ 200             100           \1\ 200         \1\ 150              50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indicates a shutdown zone that does not encompass the entire Level A zone. The CBS is requesting Level A
  take of humpback whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor seals associated with impact pile driving.

    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable 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 to both 
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 area 
in which take is anticipated (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.
    Monitoring Protocols--Monitoring would be conducted before, during, 
and after pile driving and removal activities. Monitoring will initiate 
30 minutes prior to pile driving through 30 minutes post-completion of 
pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to 
install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time 
elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 
thirty minutes.
    One land-based protected species observer (PSO) will be present 
during all pile activity; during impact pile driving, a secondary boat-
based PSO will be on watch. The land-based PSO will be located at the 
GPIP construction site and will be able to view the area across Silver 
Bay to the west and east of Sugarloaf Point and monitor the mouth of 
Silver Bay to determine whether marine mammals enter the action area 
from East Channel of Sitka Sound (the entrance monitoring zone). The 
PSO will have no other primary duties than watching for and reporting 
on events related to marine mammals. The PSO will scan the monitoring 
zone for the presence of listed species for 30 minutes before any pile 
driving or removal activities take place. Each day prior to commencing 
in-water work the PSO will conduct a radio check with the construction 
foreman or superintendent. The PSO will brief the foreman or supervisor 
as to the shutdown procedures if any marine mammals are observed likely 
to enter or within a shutdown zone, and will have the foreman brief the 
crew, requesting that the crew notify the PSO when a marine mammal is 
spotted. CBS proposed the PSO will work in shifts lasting no longer 
than 4 hours with at least a 1-hour break between shifts, and will not 
perform duties as an PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24[hyphen]hr 
period (to reduce PSO fatigue). The PSO will remain onsite each day 
until all in-water pile driving/removal is completed.
    No less than 30 minutes prior to any pile driving, the boat-based 
PSO will begin monitoring the Level A and B harassment zones A boat-
based PSO is not required during timber pile removal due to limited 
harassment zones. This PSO will transit to the head of Silver Bay to 
ensure that there are no marine mammals for which take is not 
authorized or to document species for which take is authorized. The 
boat-based PSO will communicate with the construction foreman or 
superintendent once the area is determined to be clear and pile driving 
activities can begin. The boat-based PSO will then transit back to the 
construction site and spend the rest of the pile driving time 
monitoring the area from the boat (see Figure 3 in CBS's application).
    If any marine mammals are present within a shutdown zone, pile 
driving and removal activities will not begin until the animal(s) has 
left the shutdown zone or no marine mammals have been observed in the 
shutdown zone for 15 minutes (for pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (for 
cetaceans). The boat-

[[Page 34644]]

based PSO will remain near the mouth of Sawmill Cove for the duration 
of pile driving to monitor for any animals approaching the area.
    The following measures also apply to visual monitoring:
    (1) Monitoring will be conducted by independent (i.e., not 
construction personnel) qualified observers, who will be placed at the 
best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and 
implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the 
shutdown to the hammer operator. 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. In addition, all PSOs must have:
    (a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
    (b) Advanced education in biological science or related field 
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
    (c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience);
    (d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    (e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
    (f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when 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; and
    (g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary.
    In addition, CBS must submit to NMFS OPR the curriculum vitae (CV) 
of all observers prior to monitoring.

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 estimates of the 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), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis 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).
    Pile driving and removal would result in the harassment of marine 
mammals within the designated harassment zones due to increased noise 
levels during 16 days. Six days of work are dedicated to removing 280 
old piles, which would emit low levels of noise into the aquatic 
environment if removed via a vibratory hammer. Vibratory pile driving, 
which also has relatively low source levels, would occur for only 2 
hours per day and there would be at least one day in between pile 
driving activity when installing the permanent piles. Impact pile 
driving would result in the loudest sound levels; however, CBS would 
install only 6 piles with an impact hammer (four 30-in and two 48-in 
piles) to proof the pile after driving it with a vibratory hammer. 
Proofing a pile is relatively short-term activity with 400 strikes 
occurring over 10 minutes per pile. Considering this and the fact only 
one pile would be installed per day, if PTS occurs, it is likely slight 
PTS (e.g., PTS onset). Due to the brief duration of expected exposure, 
any Level B harassment would be temporary and any behavioral changes as 
a result are expected to be minor.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality is anticipated or authorized.
     The number of piles in the design has been reduced to the 
lowest amount practicable (other designs required more piles); 
therefore, the amount of pile activity is minimal at 16 days over the 
course of 3 months.
     Extremely limited impact pile driving would occur (ten 
minutes per day for six non-consecutive days).
     The project and ensonified areas include a cove and dead-
end bay (Silver Bay) with no significant marine mammal habitat.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from the proposed activity 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, in practice, NMFS compares the number of 
individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of 
the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an 
authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
    NMFS is proposing to authorize a very small amount of Level A takes 
of marine mammals. Level B takes are more numerous and still only 
constitute between 0.12 and 6.5 percent of a given stock (Table 7). For 
pinnipeds, the number of takes likely represents repeated exposures of 
a smaller number of animals; therefore, the percent of stock taken is 
likely even smaller. Finally, the area where these takes may occur 
represents a negligible area with respect to each stock's range; 
therefore, it is unlikely a larger percentage of a stock's population 
would move through the action area.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals,

[[Page 34645]]

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

    Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources, 
including sea lions and harbor seals. In 2012 (the most recent year for 
which information is available), the community of Sitka had an 
estimated subsistence take of 49 harbor seals and 1 Steller sea lion 
(Wolf et al. 2013). CBS contacted the Alaska Harbor Seal Commission, 
the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, and the Sitka 
Tribe of Alaska and these organizations expressed no concerns about the 
project. Therefore, NMFS has 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)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the Alaska Regional Office, 
whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened 
species.
    NMFS is proposing to authorize take of the wDPS of Steller sea 
lions and the humpback whale Mexico DPS, which are listed under the 
ESA. As such, the Permit and Conservation Division has requested 
initiation of Section 7 consultation with the NMFS Alaska Regional 
Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA 
consultation 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 CBS for conducting pile driving and removal, Sitka, 
from October 1, 2017-December 31, 2017, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated. This section contains the conditions that would be 
included in the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is 
proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
    1. This IHA is valid only for takes of marine mammals incidental to 
pile driving and pile removal associated with the Gary Paxton 
Industrial Park Dock Modification Project in Sawmill Cove, Alaska.
    2. General Conditions
    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the CBS, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    (b) The species authorized for taking are the humpback whale 
(Megaptera novaeangliae), killer whale (Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise 
(Phocoena phocoena), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and Steller sea lion 
(Eumetopias jubatus)
    (c) The taking, by Level A and B harassment is authorized for 
humpback whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor seal. Take, by Level B 
harassment only, is authorized for killer whales and Steller sea lions.
    (d) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species 
listed in condition 2(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any 
other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the 
modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
    (e) The take, by Level A harassment, of killer whales and Steller 
sea lions is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, 
or revocation of this IHA.
    (f) The CBS shall conduct briefings between construction 
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start 
of all pile activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order 
to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal 
monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
    3. Mitigation Measures
    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the 
following mitigation measures:
    (a) CBS will first attempt to direct pull old, abandoned piles; if 
those efforts prove to be ineffective, they may proceed with a 
vibratory hammer.
    (b) CBS will operate the vibratory hammer during pile driving at a 
reduced energy setting (30-50 percent).
    (c) CBS will use a will use a softening material (e.g., high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene 
(UHMW)) on all templates to eliminate steel on steel noise generation.
    (d) A ``soft start'' technique will be used at the beginning of 
each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the 
immediate area to leave before hammering at full energy. The soft start 
requires CBS to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at 
reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will 
be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, CBS will 
be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact 
hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, 
then two subsequent 3-strike sets. This soft-start will be applied 
prior to beginning pile driving activities each day or when pile 
driving hammers have been idle for more than 30 minutes.
    (e) If any marine mammal is sighted within a shut-down zone prior 
to pile-driving, or during the soft start, CBS will delay pile-driving 
until the animal is confirmed to have moved outside and on a path away 
from the area or if 15 minutes (for pinnipeds or small cetaceans) or 30 
minutes (for large cetaceans) have elapsed since the last sighting of 
the marine mammal within the safety zone.
    (f) CBS will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer until a 
desired depth is achieved or to refusal prior to using an impact 
hammer. CBS will also use the minimum impact hammer energy needed to 
safely install the piles.
    (g) For all pile driving and pile removal activities, the entity 
shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around the pile. 
If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such 
operations shall cease. For impact pile driving, CBS shall implement a 
shutdown zone based on species observed (See Table 2 for minimum radial 
distances required for shutdown zones).
    4. Monitoring
    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine 
mammal monitoring during all pile driving and pile removal activities. 
Monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the 
application.
    (a) One land-based PSO and one boat-based PSO will be used to 
monitor the area during all pile driving and removing the temporary 
piles (no boat-based PSO is required during timber pile removal). The 
land-based PSO will be located at the GPIP construction site.
    (b) The land-based PSO will scan the monitoring zone for the 
presence of listed species for 30 minutes before, during, and 30 
minutes after any pile driving or removal activities take place.
    (c) The land-based PSO will work in shifts lasting no longer than 4 
hours with at least a 1-hour break between shifts, and will not perform 
duties as a PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24-hr period. The PSO will 
remain onsite each

[[Page 34646]]

day until all in-water pile driving/removal is completed.
    (d) No less than 30 minutes prior to any pile driving, the boat-
based PSO will begin monitoring the Level B harassment zone. Note a 
boat-based PSO is not required during timber pile removal. This PSO 
will transit to the head of Silver Bay to ensure there are no marine 
mammals for which take is not authorized or to document species for 
which take is authorized. The boat-based PSO will communicate with the 
construction foreman or superintendent once the area is determined to 
be clear and pile driving activities can begin. The boat-based PSO will 
then transit back to the mouth of Sawmill Cove and spend the rest of 
the pile driving time monitoring the area from the boat.
    (e) Monitoring will be conducted by independent (i.e., not 
construction personnel) qualified observers, who will be placed at the 
best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and 
implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the 
shutdown to the hammer operator. 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. In addition, all PSOs must have:
    (i) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
    (ii) Advanced education in biological science or related field 
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
    (iii) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience);
    (iv) Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    (v) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
    (vi) 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; and
    (vii) 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.
    (f) In addition, CBS must submit to NMFS the curriculum vitae (CV) 
of all observers prior to monitoring.
    5. Reporting
    The holder of this Authorization is required to:
    (a) Submit a draft report to NMFS on all monitoring conducted under 
the IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal 
monitoring or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA 
for this project, whichever comes first. A final report shall be 
prepared and submitted to NMFS within thirty days following resolution 
of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report shall include 
details within the Monitoring Plan and the following:
    (i) The amount, by species, of Level A and B takes documented. 
Total Level B take should be corrected for any area unobserved.
    (ii) Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, 
including the distance of animals to the pile driving and removal 
activities and description of specific actions that ensued and 
resulting behavior of the animal, if any.
    (iii) Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of 
individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as 
ability to track groups or individuals.
    (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 a serious injury, or mortality, CBS shall immediately cease the 
specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report 
must include the following information:
    1. Time and date of the incident;
    2. Description of the incident;
    3. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound 
source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
    5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    6. Fate of the animal(s); and
    7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with CBS to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. CBS may not resume 
their activities until notified by NMFS.
    (ii) In the event that CBS discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is 
unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a 
moderate state of decomposition), CBS shall immediately report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
    The report must include the same information identified in 5(b)(i) 
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the 
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with CBS to determine 
whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the 
activities are appropriate.
    (iii) In the event that CBS 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), CBS shall report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding 
Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. CBS shall provide 
photographs or video footage or other documentation of the stranded 
animal sighting to NMFS.
    6. 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 the proposed pile 
driving and removal. Please include with your comments any supporting 
data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the 
request for MMPA authorization.

    Dated: July 20, 2017.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15659 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P