[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8437-8456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03885]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF957


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Cook Inlet Pipeline Cross Inlet 
Extension Project

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

[[Page 8438]]


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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Harvest Alaska, LLC 
(Harvest), a subsidiary of Hilcorp, for authorization to take marine 
mammals incidental to installing two pipelines in Cook Inlet. 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. 
NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision 
on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency 
responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 
29, 2018.

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 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-oil-and-gas 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 application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-oil-and-gas. 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 (as delegated to NMFS) 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).

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 (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    Accordingly, NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 
consider the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of the 
proposed IHA. NMFS' EA will be made available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm. We will review all comments submitted in 
response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making 
a final decision on the IHA request.

Summary of Request

    On May 16, 2017, NMFS received a request from Harvest Alaska 
(Harvest) for an IHA to take six species of marine mammals incidental 
to installing two pipelines as part of the Cook Inlet Extension 
Project, Cook Inlet, Alaska. Harvest submitted a revised application on 
October 20, 2017 and again on January 29, 2018 which NMFS determined 
was adequate and complete on January 30, 2018. Harvest's request is for 
take of small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales (Delphinapterus 
leucas), humpback whales, (Megaptera novaeangliae), killer whales 
(Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), harbor seals 
(Phoca vitulina) and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) by Level B 
harassment only. The IHA would be valid from April 15, 2018 through 
March 31, 2019. Neither Harvest nor NMFS expects serious injury or 
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The proposed Cook Inlet Pipeline Cross Inlet Extension Project 
(CIPL Project) includes the installation of two new steel subsea 
pipelines in the waters of Cook Inlet. Work includes moving subsea 
obstacles out of the pipeline corridor, pulling two pipelines (one oil, 
one gas) into place on the seafloor, securing pipelines with sandbags, 
and connecting the pipelines to the existing Tyonek platform. The 
positioning and installation of the offshore pipeline would be 
accomplished using a variety

[[Page 8439]]

of pipe pulling, positioning, and securing methods supported by dive 
boats, tug boats, and/or barges and winches. Work would be limited to 
the pipeline corridor from Ladd Landing to the Tyonek Platform and 
could occur for up to 110 days. The installation of the subsea 
pipelines, specifically presence of and noise generated from work 
vessels has the potential to take marine mammals by harassment. Harvest 
requests authorization to take small numbers of six species of marine 
mammals incidental to the project.

Dates and Duration

    The proposed project would take place for approximately 110 days 
from April 15 through October 31, 2018. Work would be staged with 
repositioning of obstacles (e.g., boulders) lasting approximately 15 
days, pipe pulling lasting approximately 11 days (weather permitting) 
and the remainder of the project, including equipment mobilization, 
pipeline securing, pipeline connection to the Tyonek platform, and 
demobilization constituting the remainder of the 110 day project.

Specific Geographic Region

    Cook Inlet is a complex Gulf of Alaska estuary (as described in 
BOEM 2016) that covers roughly 7,700 square miles (mi\2\; 20,000 square 
kilometers (km\2\)), with approximately 840 miles (mi) (1,350 linear 
kilometer (km)) of coastline (Rugh et al., 2000). Cook Inlet is 
generally divided into upper and lower regions by the East and West 
Forelands (see Figure 1-1). Northern Cook Inlet bifurcates into Knik 
Arm to the north and Turnagain Arm to the east. Overall, Cook Inlet is 
shallow, with an area-weighted mean depth of 148 feet (ft) (44.7 meters 
(m)). The physical oceanography of Cook Inlet is characterized by 
complex circulation with variability at tidal, seasonal, annual, and 
inter-annual timescales (Musgrave and Statscewich 2006). This region 
has the fourth largest tidal range in the world and as a result, 
extensive tidal mudflats that are exposed at low tides occur throughout 
Cook Inlet, especially in the upper reaches. These tides are also the 
driving force of surface circulation. Strong tidal currents drive the 
circulation in the greater Cook Inlet area with average velocities 
ranging from 1.5 to 3 m per second (3 to 6 knots).
    The project area is located a few kilometers north of the village 
of Tyonek between Ladd Landing and the Tyonek Platform (see Figure 1-2 
of Harvest's application). On April 11, 2011, NMFS designated two areas 
as critical habitat comprising 7,800 km\2\ (3,016 mi\2\) of marine 
habitat. The project area is within critical habitat area 2, which 
includes known fall and winter Cook Inlet beluga foraging and 
transiting areas (see Figure 4-1 in Harvest's application).

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    The project includes the installation of two new steel subsea 
pipelines in the waters of Cook Inlet: A 10-inch (in) nominal diameter 
gas pipeline (Tyonek W 10) between the Tyonek Platform and the Beluga 
Pipeline (BPL) Junction, and the 8-in nominal diameter oil pipeline 
(Tyonek W 8) between the existing Tyonek Platform and Ladd Landing (see 
Figure 1-1 in Harvest's application). The length of the Tyonek W 10 
pipeline would be approximately 11.1 km (6.9 mi) with 2.3 km (1.4 mi) 
onshore and 8.9 km (5.5 mi) offshore in Cook Inlet waters. The Tyonek W 
8 pipeline would be approximately 8.9 km (5.5 mi) in Cook Inlet waters. 
The purpose and need of the CIPL Project is to allow for the 
transportation of natural gas directly from the Tyonek Platform to the 
Beluga Pipeline (BPL) on the west side of Cook Inlet for use in the 
Southcentral natural gas system and to support future oil development 
at Tyonek Platform. At this time, Harvest would not connect the Tyonek 
8 oil pipeline to the Tyonek platform or make the oil pipeline 
operational.
    The proposed method of construction is to fabricate the pipelines 
in approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) segments onshore in the cleared pull 
area. Each pipeline section would be inspected and hydrotested, and 
coatings would be verified. Additional segments would be welded 
together, section splice welds inspected, and coatings applied to welds 
in the onshore fabrication area. The entire 0.8 km (0.5 mi) section 
would be pulled offshore following connection of each new segment, 
until the pipeline section is approximately half of the entire offshore 
length of the pipeline. This section would then be pulled into place 
where the 10-in line can be connected to Tyonek Platform. The 8-in line 
would be capped subsea adjacent to the platform for future connection 
to the platform. Thereafter, a second section would be constructed 
using the same technique as the first. It would be pulled into place 
where it can be connected to the first section using a subsea 
mechanical connection.
    Pipeline segments/sections would be pulled from shore using a winch 
mounted on an anchored pull barge. The barge would be repositioned and 
anchored during slack tide, by two 120 ft tugs with a horsepower of 
5,358 at 900 revolutions per minute (RPM). The barge will be secured by 
four anchors and repositioned during the slack tides. The pipe pull 
itself will take place through the tide periods to minimize cross 
currents and maximize control of pipeline routing. An additional winch 
onshore would maintain alignment of the pipeline during pulling and the 
winch on the pull barge would pull the pipeline from shore out to the 
platform. A dive boat would be used to pull the tag line to the main 
winch line. Both pipelines would be installed concurrently. Once a 
segment for one pipeline has been pulled, the corresponding segment for 
the other pipeline would be pulled, until the long sections for both 
pipelines have been constructed. A sonar survey (operating at or above 
200 kilohertz (kHz)) would be used to confirm that the pipe is being 
installed in the correct position and location.
    In the tidal transition zone, the pipeline would be exposed on the 
ground surface. The exposed pipelines would be buried through the tidal 
transition zone and each would be connected to its respective onshore 
pipeline and shutdown valve station. The proposed method for pipeline 
burial in the transition zone is by trenching adjacent to the pipeline 
using the open cut method, placing the pipeline in the trench, followed 
by direct burial of the pipeline to a depth of approximately 1.8 m (6 
ft). Each pipeline would be buried in a separate trench. The trench 
from the cut in the bluff would be continued into the tidal zone area 
and would be dug from the beach side as far offshore as possible. The 
barge Ninilchik would then be anchored as close to the beach as 
possible and the trench continued for the required distance from shore 
to adequately protect the pipe from ice damage. This would be done from 
the barge with the crane equipped with a clam shell bucket or backhoe. 
Trenching in the tidal transition zone would take place during low tide 
to allow shore-based excavators maximum distance into the tidal zone. 
Work in the intertidal zone in waters less than 30-ft (9-m) deep work 
would occur for approximately 2-4 hours per slack tide over a 4- to 6-
week period.
    Further offshore, the barge, dive boat and divers would be used to 
install sand bags over the pipelines for anchoring and stabilization. 
Stabilization is expected to take about 10-11 days. Upon completion of 
pipeline stabilization activities, the dive boat would be used to 
install cathodic protection (anode sleds) along the pipelines. Sonar 
surveys would be

[[Page 8440]]

completed after installation to confirm that pipeline placement is 
correct. Sonar equipment would operate at frequencies above 200 kHz, 
outside the hearing sensitivity range of any marine mammals in the 
area, so would have no potential for take of marine mammals and is not 
addressed further in this document.
    Once each 2.5-mi section of each pipeline have been pulled into 
place, divers would measure the specific distances between the 
sections. Steel spool sections with gaskets that would connect the two 
sections of each pipeline would be fabricated onshore; divers would use 
the spool sections to connect the pipeline segments underwater. The 
dive boat would be operating intermittently during the nine-day period 
needed to complete the underwater connections. The barge would be 
stationary, with tugs powered on and standing-by.
    The subsea gas pipeline (Tyonek W10) would be connected to a new 
riser at the Tyonek Platform by new subsea connections. In addition to 
modifications to existing piping, a shutdown valve would be installed. 
An existing pipeline lateral (from platform to subsea flange) would be 
capped and abandoned in place; it would be available for future use. 
The connections would be fabricated onshore, transported to the 
platform on a workboat, and lowered to the seafloor. A dive boat, tug, 
and barge would facilitate the connection from new pipeline to the base 
of the new gas riser. The dive boat would be operating intermittently 
during the 9-day period needed to complete the underwater connections. 
A set of underwater tools may be used for a brief period to expose the 
location where the new subsea gas pipeline would be connected to the 
existing pipeline and prepare the pipeline for connection. These tools 
may include a hydraulic wrench, pneumatic grinder, and a hydraulic 
breaker and pressure washer (i.e., Garner Denver Series Pressure 
Washer) for removing concrete from existing infrastructure. The use of 
these tools would only be required during one dive for a short duration 
(less than 30 minutes).
    Prior to initiating pipeline pulling activities, obstacles along 
the pull path would be repositioned. A subsea sonar survey was 
conducted in Spring 2017 to identify any obstacles that could damage 
the pipe during installation or impede the pipe pulling activities. A 
number of items 1.5 me (5 ft) in diameter or greater were identified 
during the survey and would be relocated to a position that does not 
interfere with the pipeline route. A maximum of 50 obstacles (e.g., 
boulders) would be moved away from the pipeline corridor using a barge-
mounted crane or tug-mounted tow cable. During slack tide, divers would 
attach a 500-600 ft long pull cable to the obstacle. The cable would 
then be pulled by a tug or, for larger objects, rolled up on a winch on 
the barge. Because divers can only attach cables during slack tide, 
Harvest anticipates this work to take approximately 15 days.
    In total, approximately 100-110 barge moves will be required 
intermittently over the 110-day period. There are four anchors for the 
barge and two anchors that will provide hold-back force for pulling 
pipe. Approximately four anchors will be set at each slack tide which 
occurs threetimes/day. Slack tide lasts approx. 1.5-2 hours. During 
slack tide, tugs will be moving anchors and repositioning the barge if 
possible depending on conditions and timing. Each anchor is 30,000 
pounds with 15 ft of chain and 4,200 ft of wire cable. Tugs engines 
will be on 24-hours per day; however, they would be ``standing by'' 
during pipe pulling when engine vessel noise is minimal. Tugs cannot 
turn off engines when not working due to strong currents. Actual time 
estimated for tugs to be working is a maximum of 12 hours per day. Dive 
boats will be secured to the barge for the majority of time, which will 
not require engines to be on or engaged. During the project, a work 
boat would be onsite to support the barges (e.g., supply equipment) and 
a crew boat would shuttle crew back and forth between the barge/vessels 
and the beach.
    Harvest provided source levels for the various vessels that would 
be used for the project. They also estimated pipe pulling source levels 
may be similar to a bucket dredge if the pipe hits something on the 
seafloor resulting in a peak source level of 179 decibels (dB). We 
believe this to be a gross overestimate because Cook Inlet is comprised 
of silty, muddy substrates and Harvest would move obstacles prior to 
initiating pipe pulling. However, no pipe pulling acoustic data is 
available; therefore, we include the proposed source level here. We 
note that while any one of these individual sources operating alone 
would not necessarily be expected to result harassment of marine 
mammals, the overall cumulative elevation in noise from a combination 
of sources as well as the presence of equipment in what is typically a 
natural, undeveloped environment (see further discussion below) may 
result in take of marine mammals. Table 1 contains construction 
scenarios during the phased project and associated use duration.

    Table 1--Construction Scenarios, Associated Equipment and Estimated Source Levels During the 108-Day CIPL
                                                     Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Approximate
          Project component/scenario                      Noise source               duration       Approximate
                                                                                      (days)       hours per day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obstruction Removal and Pipeline pulling        Tug (120 ft) x 2................              68           10-12
 (subtidal).                                    Dive boat \1\...................              28               9
                                                Sonar boat \2\..................               9              12
                                                Work boat (120 ft) \1\..........              68               9
                                                Crew boat (48 ft) \1\...........              68               9
                                                Barge anchoring \3\.............
Pipeline pulling (intertidal).................  Tug x 2.........................              16           10-12
                                                Barge anchoring.................              16
                                                Crew boat.......................
Trenching (transition zone)...................  Tug x 2.........................              10              12
                                                Backhoe/bucket dredge \4\ (beach-             10              12
                                                 based).
Mid-line Pipeline Tie-In Work.................  Tug x 2.........................               7           10-12
                                                Dive boat.......................               4               9
                                                Work boat.......................               7              12
                                                Barge anchoring.................               7               6

[[Page 8441]]

 
Connections of Tyonek Platform................  Tug x 2.........................               7           10-12
                                                Work boat.......................               7               8
                                                Dive boat.......................               7               9
                                                Underwater tools (hydraulic                    7      30 minutes
                                                 wrench, pneumatic grinder, and
                                                 pressure washer).
Total Duration \5\............................  Tug x 2.........................             108
                                                Dive boat.......................              39
                                                Sonar boat......................               9
                                                Work/crew boat..................             108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The dive boat, crew boat, and work boat durations are shorter than tugs because they would be tied to the
  barge most of the time. Main engines would not be running while tied up, but a generator and compressors would
  be running to support diving operations.
\2\ Sonar boat engine noise only. Sonar equipment would operate at frequencies over 200 kHz.
\3\ Barge is equipped with four anchors.
\4\ Backhoe and tug will be used approximately 2-4 hours per low/slack tide to complete transition zone
  installation.
\5\ Total time does not include allowance of 6 weather days because vessels would not operating during those
  days.

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 website 
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
    Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Cook Inlet and summarizes information related to the population or 
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered 
Species Act (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. Alaska SARs (Muto et al., 2016). All values presented in 
Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and 
are available in the 2016 SARs (Muto et al., 2016) available online at: 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm.

                                                               Table 2--Need a title here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent     PBR \3\   Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale..........................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -;N                 20,990 (0.05, 20125,          624        132
                                                                                                             2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale...........................  Balaenoptera physalus..  Northeast Pacific Stock  E;Y                 1,368 (1,368, 0.34,           UND        0.6
                                                                                                             2010).
Minke whale.........................  Balaenoptera             Gulf of Alaska.........  -;N                 unk...................        N/A          0
                                       acutorostrata.
Humpback whale......................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Central North Pacific..  E;Y                 10,103 (0.3, 7890,             83         24
                                                                                                             2006).
Humpback whale......................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Western North Pacific..  E;Y                 1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006)          3        2.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale........................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Cook Inlet.............  E;Y                 312 (0.1, 287, 2014)..        UND          0
Killer whale........................  Orcinus orca...........  Alaska Resident........  -;N                 2,347 (unk, 2,347,             24          1
                                                                                                             2012).
Killer whale........................  Orcinus orca...........  Gulf of Alaska,          -;N                 587 (unk, 587, 2012)..        5.9          1
                                                                Aleurian, Bering Sea
                                                                Transient.

[[Page 8442]]

 
                                                             Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.....................  Phocoena phocoena......  Gulf of Alaska.........  -;Y                 31,046 (0.214, N/A,           UND         72
                                                                                                             1998).
Dall's porpoise.....................  Phocoenoides dalli.....  Alaska.................  -;N                 83,400 (0.097, N/A,           UND         38
                                                                                                             1993).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion....................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Western U.S............  E;Y                 50,983 (unk, 50,983,          306        236
                                                                                                             2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.........................  Phoca vitulina.........  Cook Inlet/Shelikof      -;N                 27,386 (unk, 25,651,          770        234
                                                                Strait.                                      2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ 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.
\3\ UND is an undetermined Potential Biological Removal (PBR).
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 2. However, the rarity of animals in the 
action and temporal and/or spatial occurrence of gray whales, fin 
whales, minke whales, and Dall's porpoise is such that take is not 
expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the 
explanation provided here. Dall's porpoise occur in Cook Inlet but 
primarily in the lower portions south of the Forelands. Dall's porpoise 
are considered rare in the action area. Fin whale sightings in Cook 
Inlet are rare. During the NMFS aerial beluga surveys from 2001 to 2014 
a total of nine groups were reported; all of which occurred south 
Kachemak Bay which is located in Lower Cook Inlet approximately 100 
miles southeast of the project area. Minke whales are also known to 
occur primarily in Lower Cook Inlet and are rare. From 1994 to 2012, 
only three minke whales were observed during the NMFS aerial surveys. 
In Lower Cook Inlet there have been several documented sightings of 
gray whales over the years; however, sighting in the Upper Inlet are 
rare. For reasons of rarity and distribution, we do not discuss these 
species further.

Beluga Whale

    Beluga whales inhabiting Cook Inlet are one of five distinct stocks 
based on the following types of data: Distribution, population 
response, phenotype, and genotype (Muto et al., 2016). During ice-free 
months, Cook Inlet beluga whales are typically concentrated near river 
mouths (Rugh et al., 2010). The fall-winter-spring distribution of this 
stock is not fully determined; however, there is evidence that most 
whales in this population inhabit upper Cook Inlet year-round (Hansen 
and Hubbard 1999, Rugh et al., 2004, Shelden et al., 2015, Castellote 
et al., 2016).
    The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock was designated as depleted under 
the MMPA (65 FR 34590, 21 May 2000), and on 22 October 2008, NMFS 
listed Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered under the ESA (73 FR 
62919, 22 October 2008). Bi-annually, NMFS conducts aerial surveys to 
determine stock abundance. The most recent survey occurred in June 2016 
with the next survey scheduled for June 2018. Aerial surveys during 
June documenting the early summer distribution and abundance of beluga 
whales in Cook Inlet were conducted by NMFS each year from 1993 to 2012 
(Rugh et al., 2000, 2005; Shelden et al., 2013), after which NMFS began 
biennial surveys in 2014 (Shelden et al., 2015b) (Fig. 2). The 
abundance estimate for beluga whales in Cook Inlet is based on counts 
by aerial observers and video analysis of whale groups Based on 
population data, there is a declining trend in abundance. From 1999 to 
2014, the rate of decline was 1.3 percent (SE = 0.7%) per year, with a 
97 percent probability that the growth rate is declining (i.e., less 
than zero), while the 10-year trend (2004-2014) is -0.4 percent per 
year (with a 76 percent probability of declining) (Shelden et al., 
2015b). Threats that have the potential to impact this stock and its 
habitat include the following: Changes in prey availability due to 
natural environmental variability, ocean acidification, and commercial 
fisheries; climatic changes affecting habitat; predation by killer 
whales; contaminants; noise; ship strikes; waste management; urban 
runoff; construction projects; and physical habitat modifications that 
may occur as Cook Inlet becomes increasingly urbanized (Moore et al., 
2000, Lowry et al., 2006, Hobbs et al., 2015, NMFS, 2106a). Planned 
projects that may alter the physical habitat of Cook Inlet include; 
highway improvements; mine construction and operation; oil and gas 
exploration and development; and expansion and improvements to ports.
    NMFS has tagged animals to identify daily patterns of movement. 
During summers from 1999 to 2002, satellite tags were attached to 18 
beluga whales to determine their distribution through the fall and 
winter months (Hobbs et al., 2005, Goetz et al., 2012). Tags on four of 
these whales transmitted for only a few days and transmissions stopped 
in September for another whale (Shelden et al., 2015a). Ten tags 
transmitted whale locations from September through November and, of 
those, three

[[Page 8443]]

transmitted into January, three into March, and one into late May 
(Hobbs et al., 2005, Goetz et al., 2012). All tagged beluga whales 
remained in Cook Inlet, primarily in Upper Inlet waters. Kernel-density 
probability distribution maps were generated from tag data and indicate 
habitat use of the area of the specified activity is low from spring 
through the fall as whales are concentrated higher in the inlet by the 
Susitna Delta, Beluaga River, and Knik and Turnigan Arm. These findings 
are also corroborated by the aerial survey data which documents very 
few sightings in the action area in June. NMFS also records sightings 
reported opportunistically. Six sightings near Tyonek are on record 
from April through October 2000 through 2014 with group size ranging 
from 3 to 14 animals (K. Shelden, pers. comm., January 25, 2018).
    Subsistence harvest of beluga whales in Cook Inlet is historically 
important to one local village (Tyonek) and the Alaska Native 
subsistence hunter community in Anchorage. Following the significant 
decline in Cook Inlet beluga whale abundance estimates between 1994 and 
1998, the Federal government took actions to conserve, protect, and 
prevent further declines in the abundance of these whales. In 1999 and 
2000, Public Laws 106-31 and 106-553 established a moratorium on Cook 
Inlet beluga whale harvests except for subsistence hunts conducted 
under cooperative agreements between NMFS and affected Alaska Native 
organizations. A long-term harvest plan set allowable harvest levels 
for a 5-year period, based on the average abundance in the previous 5-
year period and the growth rate during the previous 10-year period. A 
harvest is not allowed if the previous 5-year average abundance is less 
than 350 beluga whales. Due to population estimates below 350, no hunt 
has occurred since 2005 when two whales were taken under an interim 
harvest plan.
    NMFS designated critical habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales in 
2011 (Figure A-1; NMFS 2011). In its critical habitat designation, NMFS 
identified two distinct areas (Areas 1 and 2) that are used by Cook 
Inlet beluga whales for different purposes at different times of year. 
Area 1 habitat is located in the northernmost region of Cook Inlet and 
consists of shallow tidal flats, river mouths, and estuarine areas, 
important for foraging and calving. Beluga whales concentrate in Area 1 
during the spring and summer months for these purposes (Goetz et al., 
2012). Area 1 has the highest concentrations of beluga whales from 
spring through fall (approximately March through October), as well as 
the greatest potential for adverse impact from anthropogenic threats 
(FR 2009). Area 2 habitat was designated for the area's importance to 
fall and winter feeding, as well as transit. Area 2 includes the Cook 
Inlet waters south of Area 1 habitat, as well as Kachemak Bay and 
foraging areas along the western shore of Lower Cook Inlet (Hobbs et 
al., 2005). Based on dive behavior and analysis of stomach contents 
from Cook Inlet belugas, it is assumed that Area 2 habitat is an active 
feeding area during fall and winter months when the spatial 
distribution and diversity of winter prey likely influence the wider 
beluga winter range (NMFS 2008b).
    Spring and Summer Distribution--Cook Inlet beluga whales show 
``obvious and repeated use of certain habitats,'' specifically through 
high concentrations in the Upper Cook Inlet (critical habitat Area 1) 
during spring and summer months (NMFS 2008a). From approximately April 
through September, Cook Inlet belugas are highly concentrated in Upper 
Cook Inlet, feeding mainly on gadids (Gadidae spp.) and anadromous 
fish, including eulachon and Pacific salmon. The eulachon and all five 
Pacific salmon species: Chinook, pink, coho, sockeye, and chum spawn in 
rivers throughout Cook Inlet. Eulachon is the earliest anadromous 
species toappear, arriving in Upper Cook Inlet in April with major 
spawning runs in the Susitna and Twentymile rivers in May and July 
(NMFS 2008). The arrival of the eulachon appears to draw Cook Inlet 
beluga whales to the northern regions of Cook Inlet where they 
concentrate to feed on the early spring run, sometimes feeding on the 
eulachon exclusively before salmon arrive in the Upper Inlet (Abookire 
and Piatt 2005; Litzow et al., 2006).
    Annual aerial surveys conducted in June from 1998 through 2008 
covering all of Cook Inlet observed the beluga whales to be almost 
entirely absent from mid and lower portions of the inlet and the 
majority located between the Little Susitna River and Fire Island in 
the Upper Inlet (Rugh et al., 2010). The greatest concentrations of 
individuals were observed in the mouth of the Susitna River and 
extending into the Knik Arm and toward Turnagain Arm. Only between two 
and 10 individuals were observed during the survey in the Lower Inlet, 
in Kachemak Bay. Those low sample size provides for statistical 
uncertainty; however, direct observations during aerial surveys provide 
strong evidence Cook Inlet belugas restrict their movements during 
spring and summer months to the extreme north of the inlet (e.g., Rugh 
et al., 2010).
    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) collected seasonal 
distribution data on Cook Inlet belugas using passive acoustic 
recorders deployed year-round at 13 locations in Cook Inlet from 2008 
to 2013 (Castellote et al., 2016). Each device was equipped with two 
types of recorders, an ecological acoustic recorder that monitored for 
low-frequency (0 to 12.5 kHz) social signals and a cetacean and 
porpoise detector for high-frequency (20 to 160 kHz) echolocation 
signals. During this study, a single recorder was deployed at Trading 
Bay. This device collected 9,734 acoustic effort hours (AEH) during the 
summer months (May to October) and 11,609 AEH during the winter months 
(November to April) over a 3-year period. Beluga detections were 
characterized by any echolocation, call, or whistle detected for any 
hour as a detection positive hour (DPH).
    A recent acoustic study found a relatively constant pattern of 
variation in beluga whale presence between summer and winter months. 
During the summer, the percent of belugas detected positively per hour 
(% DPH) was highest in Upper Cook Inlet, primarily in Eagle Bay (12.4 
percent), Little Susitna River (7.6 percent), and Beluga River (4.8 
percent) and lowest in the Lower Inlet (less than 1 percent), which 
includes Trading Bay. During the winter, the highest percent DPH was at 
the Beluga River (6.0 percent), while Trading Bay had the second 
highest percent DPH during these same months (Castellote et al., 2016). 
These findings agreed with the past aerial and telemetry data.
    Fall and Winter Distribution- Beginning in October, beluga whales 
become less concentrated, increasing their range and dispersing into 
deeper waters of the upper and mid-region of Cook Inlet. In late summer 
and fall (August to October), Cook Inlet belugas use the streams on the 
west side of Cook Inlet from the Susitna River south to Chinitna Bay, 
sometimes moving up to 35 miles upstream to follow fish migrations 
(NMFS 2008a). Direct winter observation of beluga whales is less 
frequent than in summer; however, Hobbs et al. (2005) estimated the 
Cook Inlet beluga whale distribution during fall and winter months 
based on known locations of satellite-tagged beluga whales from 1999 
through 2003 (National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) 1999, 2000, 
2001, 2002-2003). Estimated Cook Inlet beluga whale distributions from 
August through March indicate that individuals concentrate their range 
in the upper

[[Page 8444]]

region of Cook Inlet through September but have a much increased range 
from October to March, utilizing more areas of the inlet. The predicted 
winter range has a more southerly focal point than in summer, with the 
majority of time spent in the mid-region of the inlet beginning in 
December.
    Although there are indications that belugas may travel to the 
extreme south of Cook Inlet, the available data show belugas remaining 
in the upper to mid-Inlet through the winter months. Most likely, the 
dispersal in late fall and winter results from belugas' need to forage 
for prey in bottom or mid-waters rather than at river mouths after the 
seasonal salmon runs have ceased. As salmon runs begin to decline for 
the year, Cook Inlet belugas change to a diet of fish found in 
nearshore bays, estuaries, and deeper waters, including cod (Gadus 
morhua), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), flatfish such 
as starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), and yellowfin sole (Limanda 
aspera) (Hobbs et al., 2008).
    If beluga whale are in the CIPL project area, they are not expected 
to linger during the proposed work period (April through October) but 
are expected to being moving north between the Beluga River (Susitna 
River delta) and the McArthur River (Trading Bay) or cross the inlet 
from the Beluga River to Point Possession/Chickaloon Bay, presumably 
looking for opportunities to feed on returning anadromous fish and 
outmigrating smolt (pers. comm., email from K. Shelden, October 13, 
2017). The distance between the project site and dense concentrations 
of foraging marine mammals at the mouths of major spawning rivers in 
upper Cook Inlet is approximately 20 to 30 kms (12 to 18 mi) and over 
50 km (31 mi) between the pipeline corridor and foraging areas in Knik 
and Turnagain Arms.

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals have been observed throughout Cook Inlet. During the 
winter, they are primarily aquatic, but through the summer months they 
spend more time hauled out onshore to rest, molt, and avoid predation. 
During the summer months, when not hauled out, harbor seals can be 
found foraging at the mouths of large rivers, primarily on the west 
side of the inlet (Boveng et al., 2012). A multi-year study of seasonal 
movements and abundance of harbor seals in Cook Inlet was conducted 
between 2004 and 2007. This study involved multiple aerial surveys 
throughout the year, and the data indicated a stable population of 
harbor seals during the August molting period (Boveng et al., 2012).

Steller Sea Lion

    In 1990, the Steller sea lion was added to the list of ESA species 
(55 FR 49204). During the early 1990s, advances in genetic technology 
helped to identify two distinct population segments (DPS) of Steller 
sea lions within the North Pacific range. The eastern DPS of Steller 
sea lions ranges from California north to Cape Suckling, Alaska; the 
western DPS ranges from Cape Suckling west to Japan, including Cook 
Inlet. The population estimate of western DPS sea lions decreased by 40 
percent in the 1990s. (Loughlin and York 2000). In 1997, the western 
DPS was reclassified as endangered under the ESA. Critical habitat was 
designated for Steller sea lions; however, it does not occur within 
Cook Inlet.
    Steller sea lions do not show regular patterns of migration. Most 
adult Steller sea lions occupy rookeries during pupping and breeding 
season (late May to early July). No rookeries are known to exist in the 
upper or mid-areas of Cook Inlet, but several have been identified 
approximately 130 mi to the south, at the extreme southern tip of the 
Kenai Peninsula (NMFS 2008b). Steller sea lions have an extensive range 
during the winter months and often travel far out to sea and use deep 
waters in excess of 1,000 m (NMFS 2008b).
    The western DPS of Steller Sea Lion occurs in Cook Inlet but ranges 
south of Anchor Point around the offshore islands and along the west 
coast of the Upper Inlet in several bays such as Chinitna and Iniskin 
(Rugh et al., 2005a). Designated rookeries and haulout sites include 
those near the mouth of the Cook Inlet, which is well south of the 
Forelands and the Action Area. Critical habitat has not been designated 
in mid- to upper Cook Inlet and Steller sea lions are considered rare 
in upper Cook Inlet.

Harbor Porpoise

    Harbor porpoises are ubiquitous throughout most of Alaska. Their 
range includes all nearshore areas from Southeast Alaska up to Point 
Barrow, including the Aleutian Islands (Gaskin 1984; Christman and 
Aerts 2015). The Alaska harbor porpoise population is separated into 
three stocks for management purposes. These include the Southeast 
Alaska stock, GOA stock, and the Bering Sea stock. Harbor porpoises in 
Cook Inlet are considered part of the GOA stock, most recently 
estimated at 25,987 (Hobbs and Waite 2010).
    Harbor porpoises forage on much of the same prey as belugas; their 
relative high densities in the Lower Inlet may be due to greater 
availability of preferred prey and less competition with belugas 
(Shelden et al., 2014). Although densities appear to be higher in the 
Lower Inlet, sightings in the Upper Inlet are not uncommon (Nemeth et 
al., 2007).
    Harbor porpoise sightings occur in all months of open water in the 
Upper Inlet but appear to peak in April to June and September to 
October. Small numbers of harbor porpoises have been consistently 
reported in the Upper Inlet between April and October, except recently 
higher numbers than typical have been observed. The highest monthly 
counts include 17 harbor porpoises reported for spring through fall 
2006 by Prevel Ramos et al., (2008), 14 for spring of 2007 by 
Brueggeman et al., (2007a), 12 for fall of 2007 by Brueggeman et al., 
(2008), and 129 for spring through fall in 2007 by Prevel Ramos et al., 
(2008) between Granite Point and the Susitna River during 2006 and 
2007; the reason for the recent spike in numbers (129) of harbor 
porpoises in the upper Cook Inlet is unclear and quite disparate with 
results of past surveys, suggesting it may be an anomaly. The spike 
occurred in July, which was followed by sightings of 79 harbor porpoise 
in August, 78 in September, and 59 in October in 2007. The number of 
porpoises counted more than once was unknown. Harbor porpoise may occur 
in large groups; however, this is more typical in the Lower Inlet and 
more commonly they occur in groups of one to three animals (Sheldon et 
al., 2014).

Killer Whales

    Killer whale distribution in Alaska ranges from the southern 
Chukchi Sea, west along the Aleutian Islands, and south to Southeast 
Alaska. As a species, killer whales have been divided into two separate 
genetically distinct groups; these are resident and transient ecotypes 
(Hoelzel and Dover 1991; Hoelzel et al., 1998, 2002; Barrett-Lennard 
2000). The resident ecotypes feed exclusively on fish, while the 
transient whales consume only marine mammals (Saulitis et al., 2000).
    Killer whales representing both ecotypes are known to occur in Cook 
Inlet. The subgroups include the Alaska Resident, GOA, Aleutian 
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stocks. Recent population estimates 
of these ecotypes are 2,347 resident and 587 transient (Muto et al., 
2016). During the NMFS aerial beluga surveys from 2001 to 2014, a total 
of 15 groups (62 individuals) were observed; all sightings took place 
in the lower part of the inlet, south of Anchor River (Figure A-7). 
Shelden et al. (2003) compiled anecdotal reports of

[[Page 8445]]

killer whales and systematic surveys in Cook Inlet to determine effects 
of predations on beluga whales. Based on their findings, out of the 122 
reported sightings, only 18 were in the Upper Inlet (Shelden et al., 
2003).

Humpback Whale

    On October 11, 2016, NMFS revised the listing status of the 
humpback whale into 14 DPSs and the species-level endangered listing 
was removed (81 FR 62259). Now, 2DPSs are listed as endangered, 2DPSs 
are threatened, and the remaining 10 DPSs are no longer listed under 
the ESA. Three DPSs of humpback whales occur in waters off the coast of 
Alaska: The Western North Pacific DPS, listed as endangered under the 
ESA; the Mexico DPS, a threatened species; and the Hawaii DPS, which is 
no longer listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Humpback 
whales in the Gulf of Alaska are most likely to be from the Hawaii DPS 
(89 percent probability) (Wade et al., 2016). Humpback whales that 
occur in Cook Inlet, albeit infrequently, are considered part of the 
Hawaii DPS.
    The GOA is one of the summer feeding grounds humpback whales 
migrate to each year (Baker et al., 1986). The GOA feeding area 
includes Prince William Sound to the Shumagin Islands, including Kodiak 
Island (Muto et al., 2016). Three humpback whale DPSs make up the GOA 
feeding group; these are the Hawaii DPS (not listed), the Mexico DPS 
(Threatened), and the Western North Pacific DPS (Endangered) (Wade et 
al., 2016).
    Capture and recapture methods using more than 18,000 fluke 
identification photographs suggest a large percentage of the GOA 
feeding group is comprised of the Hawaii DPS. Data from the same study 
indicate that the Mexico DPS also contributes to the GOA feeding group; 
the study was also the first to show that some whales from the Western 
North Pacific stock migrate to the Aleutian Islands and could 
potentially be part of the GOA group (Barlow et al., 2011).
    In the summer, humpback whales are present regularly and feed 
outside of Cook Inlet, including Shelikof Strait, Kodiak Island bays, 
the Barren Islands, and the Kenai and Alaska peninsulas. However, there 
have been several projects in Cook Inlet that have observed humpback 
whales in Lower Cook Inlet during the summer. From 2001 to 2014, the 
NMFS aerial beluga survey of Cook Inlet recorded a total of 198 
humpback sightings; the majority of which occurred south of Homer. In 
2014 five humpback whale groups were observed on the east side of Cook 
Inlet during the surveys conducted as part of the Apache project 
(Lomac-MacNair et al., 2014). Three of these sightings, including the 
mother-calf pair, were observed north of the Forelands but still well 
south of the Project Area.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately 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 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 hearing groups and the associated 
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges 
correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range 
not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within 
that group):
    Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 
estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (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;
     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).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. 
Six marine mammal species (four cetacean and two pinniped (one otariid 
and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to be taken by 
the proposed project. Of the cetacean species that may be present, one 
is classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 
two are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and 
ziphiid species and the sperm whale), and one is classified as high-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).

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 includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section considers 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.
    The proposed project includes the use of various types of vessels 
(e.g., tugs, dive boat, sonar boat), a large barge secured by four 
anchors, continuous types of work (e.g., trenching, moving obstacles 
barge anchoring, use of a underwater tools) that, collectively, would 
emit consistent, low levels of noise into Cook Inlet for an extended 
period of time (110 days) in a concentrated area. Unlike projects that 
involve discrete noise sources with known potential to harass marine

[[Page 8446]]

mammals (e.g., pile driving, seismic surveys), both the noise sources 
and impacts from the pipeline installation project are less well 
documented and, for reasons described below, may range from Level B 
harassment to exposure to noise that does not result in harassment. The 
various scenarios that may occur during this project extend from 
vessels in stand-by mode (tug engines on and maintaining position) to 
multiple vessels and operations occurring at once. Here, we make 
conservative assessments of the potential to harass marine mammals 
incidental to the project and, in the Estimated Take section, 
accordingly propose to authorize take, by Level B harassment.
    The proposed project has the potential to harass marine mammals 
from exposure to noise and the physical presence of working vessels 
(e.g., tugs pushing barges) other construction activities such as 
removing obstacles from the pipeline path, pulling pipelines, anchoring 
the barge, divers working underwater with noise-generating equipment, 
trenching, etc. In this case, NMFS considers potential harassment from 
the collective use of industrial vessels working in a concentrated area 
for an extended period of time and noise created when moving obstacles, 
pulling pipelines, trenching in the intertidal transition zone, and 
moving barges two to three times per day using two tugs. Essentially, 
the project area will become be a concentrated work area in an 
otherwise non-industrial, serene setting. In addition, the presence of 
the staging area on land and associated work close to shore may harass 
hauled-out harbor seals.

Auditory Effects

    NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (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 (PTS) or temporary (TTS). 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 a non-impulsive source while impact pile driving 
is treated as an impulsive source.
    Permanent Threshold Shift--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--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 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.

Masking

    Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate 
social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from 
anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but 
only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the 
marine mammal (Southall et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 
2012). Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise 
could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that 
utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). 
Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources 
interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as 
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds 
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, 
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being 
severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
    Masking occurs in the frequency band that he animals utilize. Since 
noises generated from tugs pushing the barge, anchor handling, 
trenching, and pipe pulling are mostly concentrated at low frequency 
ranges, these activities likely have less effect on high frequency 
echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower 
frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of 
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such 
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when 
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space 
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels 
(e.g., Holt et al., 2009).
    Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial 
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or 
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects 
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term 
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent 
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased 
by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms of sound pressure 
level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of 
these increases are from distant shipping. All

[[Page 8447]]

anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessel traffic and 
cable-laying while operating anchor handling, contribute to the 
elevated ambient noise levels, thus increasing potential for or 
severity of masking.

Behavioral Disturbance

    Finally, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to 
behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as: Changing 
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or 
moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; 
changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as 
socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., 
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall et al., 
2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 micro Pascal 
([mu]Pa) root mean square (rms) to predict the onset of behavioral 
harassment from impulse noises (such as impact pile driving), and 120 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous noises (such as operating dynamic 
positioning (DP) thrusters). No impulse noise within the hearing range 
of marine mammals is expected from the Quintillion subsea cable-laying 
operation. For the pipeline installation activities, only the 120 dB re 
1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold is considered because only continuous noise 
sources would be generated.
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects 
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, 
duration, and context of the effects. 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 consideration of the range of potential effects (PTS to 
behavioral disturbance), we consider the potential exposure scenarios 
and context in which species would be exposed. Cook Inlet beluga whales 
are expected to present in low numbers during the work; therefore, they 
are likely to, at some point, be exposed to elevated noise fields in 
the vicinity of the project. However, beluga whales are expected to be 
transiting through the area (as described in the Description of Marine 
Mammals section); thereby limiting exposure duration as the majority of 
the beluga whale population is expected to concentrate farther north. 
Belugas are expected to be headed to, or later in the season, away 
from, the concentrated foraging areas near the Beluga River, Susitna 
Delta, and Knik and Turnigan Arms. Similarly, humpback whales, killer 
whales, harbor porpoise and Steller sea lions are not expected to 
remain in the area. Because of this and the relatively low level 
sources, the likelihood of PTS and TTS is discountable. Harbor seals; 
however, may linger or haul-out in the area but they are not known to 
do so in any large number or for extended periods of time (there are no 
known major haul-outs or rookeries in the project area). Here we find 
there is small potential for TTS but again, PTS is not likely due to 
the types of sources involved in the project.
    Given most marine mammals are likely transiting through the area, 
exposure is expected to be brief but, in combination with the actual 
presence of working equipment, may result in animals shifting pathways 
around the work site (e.g., avoidance), increasing speed or dive times, 
or cessation of vocalizations. A short-term, localized disturbance 
response is supported by data indicating belugas regularly pass by 
industrialized areas such as the Port of Anchorage; therefore, we do 
not expect any abandonment of the transiting route. We also anticipate 
some animals may elicit such mild reactions to the project that take 
does not occur. For example, during work down times (e.g., while tugs 
may be operating engines in ``stand-by'' mode), the animals may be able 
to hear the work but any resulting reactions, if any, are not expected 
to rise to the level of take.

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 ``small numbers'' 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 be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns and possibly low levels of TTS for 
individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to multiple working 
vessels and construction activities in a concentrated area. Based on 
the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated 
nor proposed to be authorized.
    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 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 uses acoustic thresholds 
that identify the received level of underwater sound above which 
exposed marine mammals would be reasonably

[[Page 8448]]

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, 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, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    Harvest's proposed activity includes the use of multiple continuous 
sources and activities (e.g., vessels, pipe pulling) and therefore the 
120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold is applicable. . As described above, 
we believe it is not any one of these single sources alone that is 
likely to harass marine mammals, but a combination of sources and the 
physical presence of the equipment. We use this cumulative assessment 
approach below to identify ensonsified areas and take estimates.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016b) 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). 
Harvest's proposed activity includes the use of non-impulsive (e.g., 
tugs pushing a barge, pipe pulling) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in the table below. 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 3--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: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE, LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE, LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE, MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE, MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE, HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE, HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).....  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE, PW,24h: 201 dB.
                                          LE, PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)....  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: 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 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
  has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
  National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
  incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
  ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
  generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
  the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
  and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
  be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
  it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

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 in the new 
thresholds, we developed a 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. Although vessels are mobile, we are 
considering them stationary for purposes of this project due to the 
confined area of work. For stationary sources, NMFS User Spreadsheet 
predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at 
that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur 
PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths 
are reported below.
    The sources and activities involved with the proposed project are 
relatively low compared to other activities for which NMFS typically 
authorizes take (e.g., seismic surveys, impact pile driving). However, 
these sources will be operating for extended periods and NMFS PTS 
thresholds now incorporate a time component. That time component is 
based on both the duration of the activity and the likely amount of 
time an animal would be exposed. To determine if there is potential for 
PTS from the proposed project, we considered operations may occur 
throughout the day and night and despite tugs being on stand-by for 
much of the time, a full day (24 hours) is the most conservative 
approach for estimating potential for PTS. Therefore, we used a source 
level of 170 dB measured at 1 m (estimated tug noise),

[[Page 8449]]

a practical spreading loss model (15logR), and the weighting factor 
adjustment (WFA) for vibratory pile driving as a proxy for vessels (2.5 
kHz). The distances to PTS thresholds considering a 24 hour exposure 
duration is provided in Table 4. Based on these results, we do not 
anticipate the nature of the work has the potential to cause PTS in any 
marine mammal hearing group; therefore, we do not anticipate auditory 
injury (Level A harassment) will occur.

                Table 4--Distances to NMFS PTS Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Distance to
                      Hearing group                        PTS threshold
                                                                (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency cetaceans.................................            22.6
Mid-frequency cetaceans.................................             2.0
High-frequency cetaceans................................            33.4
Phocids.................................................            13.8
Otarids.................................................             1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each construction phase (see Table 1 above) involves multiple 
pieces of equipment that provide physical and acoustic sources of 
disturbance. For this project, we anticipate the ensonified area to 
shift as the project progresses along the pipeline corridor. That is, 
at the onset of the project, work will be concentrated in the 
intertidal zone close to shore and, as work continues, moving offshore 
towards the Tyonek platform. We also anticipate that the sound field 
generated by the combination of several sources will expand and 
contract as various construction related activities are occurring. For 
example, pushing the barge may require tugs to use increased thruster 
power, which would likely result in greater distances to the 120 dB re 
1 [mu]Pa threshold in comparison to general movement around the area. 
Therefore, calculating an ensonified area for the entire pipeline 
corridor would be a gross overestimate and we offer an alternative 
here.
    Because we consider the potential for take from the combination of 
multiple sources (and not any given single source), we estimate the 
ensonified area to be a rectangle centered along the pipeline corridor 
which encompasses all in-water equipment and a buffer around the 
outside of the cluster of activities constituting the distance 
calculated to the 120 dB threshold from one tug (i.e., 2,200 m). NMFS 
determined a tug source level (170 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa) for the duration of 
the project would be a reasonable step in identifying an ensonified 
zone since tugs would be consistently operating in some manner, and 
other sources of noise (e.g., trenching, obstacle removal, underwater 
tools) are all expected to produce less noise. Anchor handling during 
barge relocation is also a source of noise during the project; however, 
we believe using the tug is most appropriate. NMFS is aware of anchor 
handling noise measurements made in the Arctic during a Shell Oil 
exploratory drilling program that produced a noise level of 143 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa at 860 m (LGL et al., 2014). However, that measurement was 
during deployment of 1 of 12 anchors in an anchor array system 
associated with a large drill rig and it would be overly conservative 
to adopt here.
    Although vessels and equipment (e.g., tugs, support vessels, barge) 
spacing would vary during the course of operations, a single layout 
must be assumed for modeling purposes. We assume the barge used for 
pipe pulling and supporting trenching and stabilization is placed in 
the middle of a group of vessels and directly in line with the pipeline 
corridor. The sonar and dive boats would also be concentrated along the 
pipeline corridor path. We conservatively assume tugs would be spaced 
approximately 0.5 km from the barge/pipeline corridor during stand-by 
mode and could be on opposite sides of the corridor. Also, vessels and 
equipment would shift from nearshore to offshore as the project 
progresses. For simplicity, we divided the pipeline corridor (8.9 km) 
in half for our ensonified area model because each pipe pulled would be 
approximately 4.45 km each. We then considered the estimated distance 
to the 120 dB threshold from the tug (2.2 km). We then doubled that 
distance and adjusted for a 0.5 km distance from the pipeline corridor 
to account for noise propagating on either side of a tug. We used those 
distances to calculate the area of the rectangle centered around the 
pipeline corridor (Area = length x width or A = 4.45 km x ((2.2 km + 
0.5km) x 2) for a Level B ensonified area of 24.03 km\2\. As the work 
continues, this area would gradually shift from nearshore to farther 
offshore, terminating at the Tyonek platform.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    There are six marine mammal species that have the potential to 
occur within the action area from April through October. The NMFS 
National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) maintains a database of Cook 
Inlet marine mammal observations collected by NOAA and U.S. Coast Guard 
personnel, fisheries observers, fisheries personnel, ferry operators, 
tourists, or other private boat operators. NMFS also collects anecdotal 
accounts of marine mammal sightings and strandings in Alaska from 
fishing vessels, charter boat operators, aircraft pilots, NMFS 
enforcement officers, Federal and state scientists, environmental 
monitoring programs, and the general public. These data were used to 
inform take estimates.
    Empirical estimates of beluga density in Cook Inlet are difficult 
to produce. One of the most robust is the Goetz et al. (2012) model 
based on beluga sighting data from NMFS aerial surveys from 1994 to 
2008. The model incorporated several habitat quality covariates (e.g., 
water depth, substrate, proximity to salmon streams, proximity to 
anthropogenic activity, etc.) and related the probability of a beluga 
sighting (presence/absence) and the group size to these covariates. The 
probability of beluga whale presence within the project area from April 
through September is 0.001 belugas per km\2\. Moving into October and 
the winter, density is likely to increase; however, Harvest anticipates 
all work will be completed no later than September.
    Harvest provided density estimates for all other species with 
likely occurrence in the action area in their IHA application; however, 
data used to generate those densities do not incorporate survey efforts 
beyond 2011. Therefore, we have developed new density estimates based 
on data collected during NMFS aerial surveys conducted from 2001 to 
2016 (Rugh et al. 2005; Shelden et al. 2013, 2015, 2017). The numbers 
of animals observed over the 14 survey years were summed for each 
species. The percent area of survey effort for each year (range 25 to 
40 percent) was used to calculate the area surveyed which was summed 
for all years (Rugh et al. 2005; Shelden et al. 2013, 2015, 2017). 
Density estimates were then derived by dividing the total number of 
each species sighted during the survey by the total area of survey 
coverage (Table 5).

[[Page 8450]]



  Table 5--Density Estimates for Marine Mammals Potentially Present Within the Action Area Based on Cook Inlet-
                                       Wide NMFS Aerial Surveys 2001-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Estimated
                                                                                                      density
                             Species                              No. of animals   Area (km\2\)     (number of
                                                                                                  animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI beluga whale.................................................  ..............  ..............      \1\ 0.0001
Humpback whale..................................................             204          87,123          0.0023
Killer whale....................................................              70          87,123          0.0008
Harbor porpoise.................................................             377          87,123           0.004
Harbor seal.....................................................          23,912          87,123          0.2745
Steller sea lion................................................        \2\ 74.1          87,123         0.00085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CI beluga whale density based on Goetz et al. (2012).
\2\ Actual counts of Steller sea lions was 741; however, it is well documented this species almost exclusively
  inhabits the lower inlet south of the Fordlands with rare sightings in the northern inlet. Therefore, we
  adjusted the number of animals observed during the NMFS surveys (which cover the entire inlet) by 1/10 to
  account for this skewed concentration.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
    To calculate take, we first estimate an amount as a product of 
ensonified area, species density, and duration of the project (Take = 
density x ensonified area x project days). As an example, for beluga 
whales, the estimated take is calculated as 24.03 km\2\ x 0.001 x 108 
days for a total of 2.59 belugas. However, for this and other species, 
we also consider anecdotal sightings with the project area, anticipated 
residency time, and group size. Table 6 provides our quantitative 
analysis of take considering density and group size.

                    Table 6--Quantitative Assessment of Proposed Take, by Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Calculated     Average group   Proposed take
                     Species                          Density        take \1\          size          (Level B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI beluga whale.................................           0.001            2.59               8          \2\ 29
Humpback whale..................................          0.0023            5.07             1-2               5
Killer whale....................................          0.0008            1.77               5           \3\ 5
Harbor porpoise.................................           0.004            8.83         \4\ 1-3               8
Harbor seal.....................................          0.2745          605.67        \5\ 1-10             606
Steller sea lion................................         0.00085            1.88             1-2               5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Take = density x ensonifed area (24.03 km\2\) x # of project days (108).
\2\ Adjusted take is based on potential for one group of eight belugas per month or two groups of four animals
  per month.
\3\ Adjusted take is based on one group of five animals or two to three groups of one to two animals during the
  project.
\4\ Group size average from Sheldon et al., 2014.
\5\ Represents range of group sizes observed during a seismic survey in the middle Inlet from May 6 through
  September 30, 2012 (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2012).

    Cook Inlet beluga whales are expected to be transiting through the 
action area in group sizes ranging from 3 to 14 animals with an average 
of 8 animals/group. These groups sizes are based on NMFS aerial surveys 
and anecdotal reports near Tyonek from April through October (pers 
comm. K Sheldon, January 25, 2018). Therefore, Harvest requests take 
for up to 29 beluga whales in anticipation that one group of 8 animals 
may pass through the action area once permonth for the duration of the 
project (i.e., 8 animals/group x 1 group/month x 3.6 months).
    For other cetaceans, we also consider group size and find killer 
whales have the potential to travel through the project area in groups 
exceeding the take calculated based on density. Because sighting data 
indicates killer whales are not common in the Upper Inlet, we 
anticipate one group to pass through the project area. The harbor 
porpoise take calculation is great enough to encompass their small 
group size; therefore, the density calculation appears to be an 
adequate representation of the number of animals that may occur in the 
project area from April through September.
    Harbor seals and Steller sea lions are expected to occur as 
solitary animals or in small groups and may linger in the action area 
more so than transiting cetaceans. Harbor seal takes estimates based on 
density reflect a likely occurrence and we are not proposing to adjust 
the calculation. However, Steller sea lion density calculations produce 
an estimated take of one animal during the entire project. While 
Steller sea lions are rare in the action area, this species may not be 
solitary and may also remain in the action area for multiple days. In 
2009, a Steller sea lion was observed three times during Port of 
Anchorage construction (ICRC 2009). During seismic survey marine mammal 
monitoring, Steller sea lions were observed in groups of one to two 
animals during two of three years of monitoring (Lomac-MacNair 2013, 
2015). Therefore, we are proposing to increase the amount of take to 5 
Steller sea lions to account for up to two animals to be observed over 
the course of three days (i.e., two animals exposed three times).

Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals

    The availability of the affected marine mammal stocks or species 
for subsistence uses may be impacted by this activity. The subsistence 
uses that may be affected and the potential impacts of the activity on 
those uses are described below. Measures included in this IHA to reduce 
the impacts of the activity on subsistence uses are described in the 
Proposed Mitigation section. The information from this section and the 
Proposed Mitigation section is analyzed to determine whether the 
necessary findings may be

[[Page 8451]]

made in the Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination 
section.
    The villages of Tyonek, Ninilchik, Anchor Point, and Kenai use the 
upper Cook Inlet area for subsistence activities. These villages 
regularly harvest harbor seals (Wolfe et al., 2009). Based on 
subsistence harvest data, Kenai hunters harvested an about 13 harbor 
seals on average per year, between 1992 and 2008, while Tyonek hunters 
only harvested about 1 seal per year (Wolfe et al., 2009). 
Traditionally Tyonek hunters harvest seals at the Susitna River mouth 
(located approximately 20 miles from the project area) incidental to 
salmon netting, or during boat-based moose hunting trips (Fall et al., 
1984). Alaska Natives are permitted to harvest Steller sea lions; 
however, this species is rare in mid- and upper Cook Inlet, as is 
reflected in the subsistence harvest data. For example, between 1992 
and 2008, Kenai hunters reported only two sea lions harvested and none 
were reported by Tyonek hunters (Wolfe et al., 2008). Sea lions are 
more common in lower Cook Inlet and are regularly harvested by villages 
well south of the project area, such as Seldovia, Port Graham, and 
Nanwalek.
    Cook Inlet beluga subsistence harvest has been placed under a 
series of moratoriums beginning 1999. Only five beluga whales have been 
harvested since 1999. Future subsistence harvests are not planned until 
after the 5-year population average has grown to at least 350 whales. 
Based on the most recent population estimates, no beluga harvest will 
be authorized in 2018.
    Harvest's proposed pipeline construction activities would not 
impact the availability of marine mammals for subsistence harvest in 
Cook Inlet due to the proximity of harvest locations to the project 
(for harbor seals) and the general lack of Steller sea lion harvest. 
Beluga subsistence harvest is currently under moratorium. Further, 
animals that are harassed from the project are expected to elicit 
behavioral changes that are short-term, mild, and localized.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental 
take authorizations to include information about the availability and 
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and 
manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks 
and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider 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, as 
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further 
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if 
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if 
implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation 
(probability implemented as planned) 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.
    NMFS anticipates the project will create an acoustic footprint 
above baseline of approximately 24 km\2\ around the concentration of 
vessels and operational activities. There is a discountable potential 
for marine mammals to incur PTS from the project as source levels are 
relatively low, non-impulsive, and animals would have to remain at very 
close distances for multiple hours, to accumulate acoustic energy at 
levels which could damage hearing. Therefore, we do not believe there 
is potential for Level A harassment and there is no designated shut-
down/exclusion zone established for this project. However, Harvest will 
implement a number of mitigation measures designed to reduce the 
potential for and severity of Level B harassment and minimize the 
acoustic footprint of the project.
    Harvest will establish a 2,200 m safety zone from the tugs on-site 
and employ a NMFS-approved protected species observer (PSO) to conduct 
marine mammal monitoring for the duration of the project. Prior to 
commencing activities for the day or if there is a 30-minute lapse in 
operational activities, the PSO will monitor the safety zone for marine 
mammals for 30 minutes. If no marine mammals are observed, operations 
may commence. If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the safety zone 
during the clearing, the PSO will continue to watch until either: (1) 
The animal(s) is outside of and on a path away from the safety zone; or 
(2) 15 minutes have elapsed if the species was a pinniped or cetacean 
other than a humpback whale, or 30 minutes for humpback whales. Once 
the PSO has determined one of those conditions are met, operations may 
commence.
    Should a marine mammal be observed during pipe-pulling, the PSO 
will monitor and carefully record any reactions observed until the pipe 
is secure. No new operational activities would be started until the 
animal leaves the area. PSOs will also collect behavioral information 
on marine mammals beyond the safety zone.
    Other measures to minimize the acoustic footprint of the project 
include: the dive boat, sonar boat, work boat, and crew boat will be 
tied to the barge or anchored with engines off when practicable; all 
vessel engines will be placed in idle when not working if they cannot 
be tied up to the barge or anchored with engines off; and all sonar 
equipment will operate at or above 200 kHz.
    Finally, Harvest would abide by NMFS marine mammal viewing 
guidelines while operating vessels or land-based personnel (for hauled-
out pinnipeds); including not actively approaching marine mammals 
within 100 yards and slowing vessels to the minimum speed necessary. 
NMFS Alaska Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines may be found at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/mm-viewing-guide.
    The proposed mitigation measures are designed to minimize Level B 
harassment by avoiding starting work while marine mammals are in the 
project area, lowering noise levels released into the environment 
through vessel operation protocol (e.g., tying vessels to barges, 
operating sonar equipment outside of marine mammal hearing ranges) and 
following NMFS marine mammal viewing guidelines. There are no known 
marine mammal feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds in the 
project area that would otherwise potentially warrant increased 
mitigation measures for marine mammals or their habitat. The proposed 
project area is within beluga whale critical habitat; however, use of 
the habitat is higher in fall and winter when

[[Page 8452]]

the project would not occur nor would habitat be permanently impacted 
other than for the presence of the pipelines on the seafloor. Thus 
mitigation to address beluga whale critical habitat is not warranted. 
Finally, the proposed mitigation measures are practicable for the 
applicant to implement. Based on our evaluation of the applicant's 
proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed 
mitigation measures provide the means of 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 both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the 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); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    Harvest will abide by all monitoring and reporting measures 
contained within their Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, 
dated January 28, 2018. A summary of those measures and additional 
requirements proposed by NMFS is provided below.
    A NMFS-approved PSO will be on-watch daily during daylight hours 
for the duration of the project. Minimum requirements for a PSO 
include:
    (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.
    PSOs will be stationed aboard a vessel or the barge, work in shifts 
lasting no more than four hours without a minimum of a one hour break, 
and will not be on-watch for more than 12 hours within a 24-hour 
period.
    To augment the vessel/barge based PSO monitoring efforts and to 
test operational capabilities for use during future projects, Harvest 
will conduct marine mammal monitoring around the project area using an 
unmanned aerial system (UAS) pending Federal Aviation Administration 
approval. The UAS pilot may be vessel or land-based and will maintain 
consistent contact with the PSO prior to and during monitoring efforts. 
UAS pilots and video feed monitors will be separate and distinct from 
PSO duties.
    A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS 
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal 
activities. It will include an overall description of work completed, a 
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated marine 
mammal observation data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
     Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
     Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
     Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
     Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
     Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
     Other human activity in the area.
    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
final report will constitute the final report. If NMFS submits 
comments, Harvest will submit a final report addressing NMFS comments 
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA 
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, Harvest 
would immediately cease the specified activities and report the 
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office 
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding 
Coordinator. The report would include the following information:
     Description of the incident;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state, 
visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;

[[Page 8453]]

     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Harvest to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Harvest would not be able 
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
    In the event that Harvest discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
ADOT&PF would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same 
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able 
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
would work with Harvest to determine whether modifications in the 
activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Harvest discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Harvest would report the incident 
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 
by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours 
of the discovery. Harvest would provide photographs or video footage 
(if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting 
to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

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).
    To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed 
in Table 9, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the 
proposed survey to be similar in nature. Potential impacts to marine 
mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see 
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their 
Habitat). Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound 
levels, but these impacts would be temporary. In addition to being 
temporary and short in overall duration, the acoustic footprint of the 
proposed survey is small relative to the overall distribution of the 
animals in the area and their use of the area. Feeding behavior is not 
likely to be significantly impacted, as no areas of biological 
significance for marine mammal feeding are known to exist in the survey 
area.
    The proposed project would create an acoustic footprint around the 
project area for an extended period time (3.6 months) from April 
through September. Noise levels within the footprint would reach or 
exceed 120 dB rms. We anticipate the 120 dB footprint to be limited to 
20km\2\ around the cluster of vessels and equipment used to install the 
pipelines. The habitat within the footprint is not heavily used by 
marine mammals during the project time frame (e.g., Critical Habitat 
Area 2 is designated for beluga fall and winter use) and marine mammals 
are not known to engage in critical behaviors associated with this 
portion of Cook Inlet (e.g., no known breeding grounds, foraging 
habitat, etc.). Most animals will likely be transiting through the 
area; therefore, exposure would be brief. Animals may swim around the 
project area but we do not expect them to abandon any intended path. We 
also expect the number of animals exposed to be small relative to 
population sizes. Finally, Harvest will minimize potential exposure of 
marine mammals to elevated noise levels by not commencing operational 
activities if marine mammals are observed within the ensonified area.
    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 project does not involve noise sources capable of 
inducing PTS;
     Exposure would likely be brief given transiting behavior 
of marine mammals in the action area;
     Marine mammal densities are low in the project area; 
therefore the number of marine mammals potentially taken is small to 
the population size; and
     Harvest would monitor for marine mammals daily and 
minimize exposure to operational activities.
    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, where estimated numbers are 
available, 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. Additionally, qualitative factors may be 
considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of 
the activities.

[[Page 8454]]

    Table 7 provides the quantitative analysis informing our small 
numbers determination. For most species, the amount of take proposed 
represents less than 1 percent of the population. The percent of stock 
of harbor seals is slightly higher at 2.1 percent; however, we 
anticipate the amount of take would include some individuals taken 
multiple times. For beluga whales, the amount of take proposed 
represents 9.1 percent of the population.

                      Table 7--Percent of Stock Proposed To Be Taken by Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Abundance     Proposed take       % of
                Species                           Stock               (Nbest)        (Level B)      population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale..........................  Cook Inlet..............             312          \2\ 29             9.2
Humpback whale........................  Central North Pacific...          10,103               5          0.0004
Killer whale..........................  Alaska Resident.........           2,347           \3\ 5             0.2
                                        Gulf of Alaska,                      587  ..............             0.8
                                         Aleurian, Bering Sea
                                         Transient.
Harbor porpoise.......................  Gulf of Alaska..........          31,046               8          0.0002
Harbor seal...........................  Cook Inlet/Shelikof               27,386             606             2.2
                                         Strait.
Steller sea lion......................  Western U.S.............          50,983               5          0.0001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified 
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by 
Alaskan Natives. 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 village of Tyonek engages in subsistence harvests; however, 
these efforts are concentrated in areas such as the Susitna Delta where 
marine mammals are known to occur in greater abundance. Harbor seals 
are the only species taken by Alaska Natives that may also be harassed 
by the proposed project. However, any harassment to harbor seals is 
anticipated to be short-term, mild, and not result in any abandonment 
or behaviors that would make the animals unavailable to Alaska Natives.
    Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures 
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and 
monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will 
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from Harvest's 
proposed activities.

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 Alaska Regional Office, 
whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened 
species.
    NMFS is proposing to authorize take of Cook Inlet beluga whales and 
Steller sea lions, which are listed under the ESA. The Permit and 
Conservation Division has requested initiation of Section 7 
consultation with the Alaska Region 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 Harvest for take of marine mammals incidental to the 
CIPL project, Cook Inlet, from April 15, 2018 through April 14, 2019, 
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA 
itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion 
in the IHA (if issued).
    Harvest Alaska (Harvest) is hereby authorized under section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 
1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass marine mammals incidental to the Cook Inlet 
Pipeline Cross Inlet Extension Project (CIPL Project) in Cook Inlet, 
Alaska, when adhering to the following terms and conditions.
    This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for a 
period of one year from the date of issuance.
    This IHA is valid only for the installation of two pipelines from 
Ladd Landing to the Tyonek platform associated with the CIPL Project in 
Cook Inlet.

General Conditions

    A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Harvest, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    The species authorized for taking are Cook Inlet beluga whales 
(Delphinapterus leucas), humpback whales, (Megaptera novaeangliae), 
killer whales (Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 
harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias 
jubatus).
    The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species 
listed in condition 3(b). See Table 6 for numbers of take authorized, 
by species.
    The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death 
of any of the species listed in condition 3(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.
    Harvest shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors 
and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and acoustical monitoring 
team, prior to the start of all in-water construction activities, and 
when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, 
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and 
operational procedures.

[[Page 8455]]

Mitigation Measures

    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the 
following mitigation measures:
     Operational activities shall only be conducted no sooner 
than 30 minutes after sunrise and shall end no later than 30 minutes 
prior to sunset;
     Operational activities subject to these mitigation 
measures include obstacle removal, trenching, pipe pulling, and moving 
the barge (including pulling and deploying anchors);
     Prior to commencing operational activities, two NMFS-
approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) shall clear the area by 
observing the safety zone (extending approximately 2,200 m from any of 
the vessels) for 30 minutes; if no marine mammals are observed within 
those 30 minutes, activities may commence.
    If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the safety zone during the 
clearing, the PSO shall continue to watch until the animal(s) is 
outside of and on a path away from the safety zone or 15 minutes have 
elapsed if the species was a pinniped or cetacean other than a humpback 
whale; for humpback whales the watch shall extend to 30 minutes. Once 
the PSO has cleared the area, operations may commence.
    Should a marine mammal be observed during pipe-pulling, the PSO 
shall monitor and carefully record any reactions observed until the 
pipe is secure. No new operational activities would be started until 
the animal leaves the area. PSOs shall also collect behavioral 
information on marine mammals beyond the safety zone.
    All vessel engines shall be placed in idle when not working.
    All sonar equipment shall operate at or above 200 kHz.

Monitoring

    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine 
mammal and acoustic monitoring. Monitoring and reporting shall be 
conducted in accordance with Harvest's Marine Mammal Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan, dated January 26, 2018.
    A NMFS-approved PSO shall monitor for marine mammals during vessel 
use during daylight hours. The PSO shall be stationed on project 
vessels or the barge.
    A PSO shall work in shifts lasting no longer than four hours with 
at least a one-hour break between shifts, and shall not perform duties 
as a PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24[hyphen]hour period.
    Qualified PSOs shall be trained biologists, with the following 
minimum qualifications:
    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;
    Advanced education in biological science or related field 
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
    Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect 
data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience);
    Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
    Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound 
of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine 
mammal behavior; and 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.
    PSOs shall scan the safety zone 30 minutes prior to commencing work 
at the beginning of each day, and prior to re-starting work after any 
stoppage of 30 minutes or greater.
    PSO shall scan The waters would continue to be scanned for at least 
30 minutes after activities have been completed each day, and after 
each stoppage of 30 minutes or greater.
    PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars, spotting scopes, and 
unaided visual observation;
    PSO shall use NMFS-approved construction and sighting forms 
developed for this project as described in Appendix A of Harvest's IHA 
application.
    Daily construction forms will be filled out by at least one PSO. 
Information for this sheet shall, at minimum, include the following: 
general start and end time each construction day; start and end time 
for each operational activity as defined above; a description of other 
in-water activities (e.g., tugs idle, divers in water, etc.) and 
associated time frames, and any other human activity in the project 
area
    Marine Mammal Sighting forms shall include the following 
information: Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period; weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility); water 
conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state); species, numbers and if 
possible, sex and age class of marine mammals; description of any 
marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of 
travel and distance from activity; distance from activities to marine 
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point; 
description of implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., shutdown or 
delay); locations of all marine mammal observations.

Reporting

    The holder of this Authorization is required to: Submit a draft 
report on all marine mammal monitoring conducted under the IHA within 
ninety calendar days of the completion of all pile driving and removal. 
If NMFS has comments on the draft report, ADOT&PF shall submit a final 
report to NMFS within thirty days following resolution of NMFS comments 
on the draft report. This report must contain the informational 
elements described below:
    Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, 
including the distance of animals to pile driving and removal and 
description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of 
the animal, if any.
    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.
    Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
    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 serious injury, or mortality, ADOT&PF shall immediately cease 
the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of 
Protected Resources (301-427-8401), NMFS, and the Alaska Region 
Stranding Coordinator (907-271-1332), NMFS. The report must include the 
following information:
     Time and date of the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations and active 
sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;

[[Page 8456]]

     Fate of the animal(s); and
     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 Harvest to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Harvest may not 
resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
    In the event that Harvest discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury 
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less 
than a moderate state of decomposition), Harvest shall immediately 
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
Alaska Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
    The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) 
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the 
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Harvest to determine 
whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the 
activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Harvest 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), Harvest shall report the incident 
to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Region 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. Harvest 
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
    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 proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed 
[action]. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this 
proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with 
your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help 
inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA 
without additional notice when 1) another year of identical or nearly 
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section 
is planned or 2) the activities would not be completed by the time the 
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, 
provided all of the following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the 
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed 
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, 
or mitigation and monitoring requirements.
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
     Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, 
and the original findings remain valid.

Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-03885 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P