[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22009-22034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10017]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG106


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Ketchikan Berth IV Expansion 
Project

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

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Ketchikan Dock Company 
(KDC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the 
Ketchikan Berth IV expansion project in Ketchikan, Alaska. Pursuant to 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on 
its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. 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 June 11, 
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-construction-activities without change. All 
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily 
submitted by the commenter may be

[[Page 22010]]

publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Molineaux, 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-construction-activities. 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.
    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.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, 
which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for 
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would 
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA 
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
    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 February 13, 2018, NMFS received a request from the KDC for an 
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities 
associated with the Ketchikan Berth IV Expansion Project. The IHA 
application was determined adequate and complete on March 28, 2018. The 
KDC's request is for take of eight species of marine mammals by Level B 
harassment and Level A harassment of a small number of harbor porpoises 
and harbor seals. Neither the KDC nor NMFS expect serious injury or 
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The KDC proposes to expand Berth IV, its dock adjacent to downtown 
Ketchikan, Alaska, located in East Tongass Narrows, in order to 
accommodate a new fleet of large cruise ships that are expected to 
reach Alaska in the summer of 2019.
    The expansion would include the removal of some existing piles and 
structures and the installation of new piles and structures. All pile 
driving and removal would take place at the existing dock facility and 
is expected to occur over the course of 20 days (not necessarily 
consecutive). The proposed project would occur in marine waters that 
support several marine mammal species. The pile driving, pile removal, 
and drilling activities associated with the project may result in 
behavioral harassment (Level B harassment and small numbers of Level A 
harassment) of marine mammal species.
    The purpose of this project is to reconfigure Berth IV so that it 
can accommodate larger cruise ships. This project is needed because the 
existing Berth IV cannot support the modern fleet of larger cruise 
ships. Once the project is constructed Berth IV will be able to 
accommodate these large cruise ships.

Dates and Duration

    Construction is expected to take 3-4 months beginning in Fall 2018. 
While construction is mostly likely to begin in October of 2018 and 
complete in January of 2019, depending on the start date, construction 
could extend into March of 2019. Regardless of start date, construction 
will occur within a four-month (maximum) work window.
    Pile removal and installation is expected to occur for a total of 
approximately 36 hours over 20 days (not necessarily consecutive days). 
Please see Table 2 for the specific amount of time required to install 
and remove piles.
    The total construction duration accounts for the time required to 
mobilize materials and resources and construct the project. The 
duration also accounts for potential delays in material deliveries, 
equipment maintenance, inclement weather, and shutdowns that may occur 
to prevent impacts to marine mammals.

Specific Geographic Region

    The City of Ketchikan is located in Southeast Alaska. Berth IV is 
located adjacent to downtown Ketchikan on the shore of East Tongass 
Narrows (see Figures 1, 2, and 3 of IHA Application). The berth is part 
of the Port of Ketchikan, an active marine commercial and industrial 
area.
    Berth IV is located within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough on 
Revillagigedo Island in Southeast Alaska; T75S, R90E, S25, Copper River 
Meridian, USGS Quadrangle KET B5; Latitude 55[deg]344' N and 
Longitude--131[deg]656' W. The project is located within Tongass 
Narrows. Major waterbodies near the area include the Clarence Strait to 
the north, the Revillagigedo Channel to the south, Nichols Passage to 
the west, and George Inlet to the east. Berth IV's expansion

[[Page 22011]]

would take place at the existing dock facility.

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    The KDC proposes to expand Berth IV by replacing the existing 
floating barge and float with a larger pontoon dock and larger small 
craft float, and by expanding the existing mooring structures (see 
Figure 4 of IHA Application). The project would:
     Permanently remove the existing floating barge dock, 
float, and their associated three dolphins comprised of two 24-inch, 
six 30-inch, and four 36-inch diameter steel piles;
     Temporarily remove the existing transfer bridge, and then 
reinstall it on the new facility;
     Install sixteen temporary 30-inch diameter steel piles as 
templates to guide proper installation of permanent piles (these piles 
would be removed prior to project completion);
     Install seventeen permanent 48-inch diameter piles and one 
permanent 30-inch diameter pile to support a new 285 feet (ft) by 40 ft 
by 10 foot floating pontoon dock, its attached 220 ft by 12 ft small 
craft float, and mooring structures; and
     Install bull rail, floating fenders, mooring cleats, and 
three mast lights. (Note: these components would be installed out of 
the water.)
    During the pile driving, pile removal and drilling activities, the 
following equipment will be used:
     A Vibratory Hammer: ICE 44B/12,450 pounds static weight;
     A Diesel Impact Hammer: Delmag D46/Max Energy 107,280 ft-
pounds (lb);
     A Drilled shaft drill: Holte 100,000 ft-lb. top drive with 
down-the-hole (DTH) hammer and bit; and
     A Socket drill: Holte 100,000 ft-lb. top drive with DTH 
hammer and under-reamer bit.
    Materials and equipment, including the dock, would be transported 
to the project site by barge. While work is conducted in the water, 
anchored barges would be used to stage construction materials and 
equipment. Twenty-five-ft skiffs with 250 horsepower motors would be 
used to support dock construction.
    In-water construction would begin with the removal of existing 
piles followed by pile installation. Table 1 below provides the 
activity type and a conservative estimate of the specific amount of 
time required to remove and install piles.

                                                       Table 1--Pile Driving Construction Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Existing pile      Temporary pile      Temporary pile      Permanent pile      Permanent pile     Max installation/
           Description                  removal          installation           removal          installation        installation       removal per day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Project Component
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile Diameter and Type..........  24, 30, and 36-     30-inch steel.....  30-inch steel.....  30-inch steel.....  48-inch steel.....
                                   inch steel.
# of Piles......................  2, 6, and 4         16................  16................  1.................  17................
                                   respectively; 12
                                   total.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Vibratory Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max # of Piles Vibrated Per Day.  4.................  4.................  4.................  1.................  2.................  4 temporary or 2
                                                                                                                                       permanent.
Vibratory Time Per Pile.........  15 minutes........  30 minutes........  10 minutes........  1 hour............  1 hour............
Vibratory Time per day..........  1 hour............  2 hours...........  40 minutes........  1 hour............  2 hours...........  2 hours.
Vibratory Time Total............  3 hours...........  8 hours...........  2 hours 40 minutes  1 hour............  17 hours..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Impact Pile Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max # of Piles Impacted Per Day.  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  3.................  3.
# of Strikes Per Pile...........  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  200 strikes.......  600 strikes.
Impact Time Per Pile............  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  5 minutes.........
Impact Time per Day.............  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  15 minutes........  15 minutes.
Impact Time Total...............  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  1 hour 25 minutes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Socketing Pile Installation (Drilling)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max # of Piles Socketed per Day.  0.................  0.................  0.................  1.................  0.................  1.
Socket Time Per Pile............  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  3 hours...........
Socket Time per Day.............  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  3 hours...........  3 hours.
Socket Time Total...............  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  3 hours...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Existing Piles

    The contractor would attempt to direct pull existing piles; if 
those efforts prove to be ineffective, existing piles would be removed 
with a vibratory hammer.

Installation and Removal of Temporary Piles

    Temporary 30-inch diameter piles would be installed and removed 
with a vibratory hammer.

Installation of Permanent Piles

    The single permanent 30-inch diameter pile would be installed 
through approximately 15 ft of sand and gravel with a vibratory hammer. 
Then the pile will be secured into underlying bedrock with conventional 
socketing means using a down-the-hole hammer

[[Page 22012]]

and under-reamer bit to drill a hole into the bedrock and then socket 
the pile into the bedrock. Socket depths are expected to be 
approximately 20 ft (as determined by the geotechnical engineer) and 
take approximately 3 hours. (Note, this socketing method can also be 
referred to as down the hole drilling. We refer to it as socketing 
throughout this document to clarify this method from anchoring, which 
also uses a drill.)
    Permanent 48-inch diameter piles would be driven through 
approximately 15 ft of sand and gravel with a vibratory hammer and 
impact driven into bedrock. After being driven with an impact hammer, 
the piles will be secured with rock anchors. To install the rock 
anchors, a drill will be placed inside the hallow 48-inch diameter pile 
and will down into the bedrock. During this anchor drilling, the 48-
inch pile will not be not touched by the drill, therefore, anchoring 
will not generate steel-on-steel hammering noise (noise that is 
generated during socketing).\1\ Each anchor will take approximately 2.5 
hours to complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In rock anchoring, the DTH drill only hits the bedrock and, 
for this effort, the 48-inch pile will act as a casing to isolate 
the drill noise. The process of anchoring has been used on many 
projects in Alaska with 8-inch diameter anchors (including the 
recently permitted Haines Ferry Terminal). Due to the significant 
loads generated from cruise ship berthing, the Ketchikan Berth IV 
project will use 30-inch diameter rock anchors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the KDC's IHA 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 
within the vicinity of Ketchikan Berth IV and summarizes information 
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under 
the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. 
For taxonomy, we follow the 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 2017a). All values presented in Table 2 
are the most recent available at the time of publication and are 
available in the 2016 SARs (Muto 2017a), Towers et al., 2015 (solely 
for northern resident killer whales), and draft 2017 SARs (Muto 2017b) 
(available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).

                               Table 2--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the Project Area During the Specified Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Stock abundance Nbest,
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA  status;      (CV, Nmin, most                Annual M/
             Common name                  Scientific name             MMPA stock         strategic  (Y/N)      recent abundance        PBR       SI \3\
                                                                                                \1\               survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae:
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Central North Pacific..  E, D, Y             10,103 (0.3; 7,890;            83         21
                                                                                                             2006).
    Minke whale.....................  Balaenoptera             Alaska.................  -, N                N.A...................       N.A.       N.A.
                                       acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Alaska Resident........  -, N                2,347 (N.A.; 2,347;          23.4          1
                                                                                                             2012) \4\
                                                               West Coast Transient...  -, N                243 (N.A, 243, 2009)          2.4          1
                                                                                                             \4\.
                                                               Northern Resident......  -, N                290 (N.A; 290; 2014)         1.96          0
                                                                                                             \6\.
    Pacific white-sided dolphin.....  Lagenorhynchus           North Pacific..........  -/-; N              26,880 (N.A.; N.A.;          N.A.          0
                                       obliquidens.                                                          1990).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae:
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Southeast Alaska.......  -, Y                975 (0.10; 896; 2012)     \5\ 8.9     \5\ 34
                                                                                                             \5\.
    Dall's porpoise.................  Phocoenoides dalli.....  Alaska.................  -, N                83,400................       N.A.         38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    Steller sea lion................  Eumatopia jubatus......  Eastern U.S............  -,-, N              41,638 (N/A; 41,638;        2,498        108
                                                                                                             2015).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina           Clarence Strait........  -, N                31,634 (N.A.; 29,093;       1,222         41
                                       richardii.                                                            2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
  designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
  which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
  automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A).

[[Page 22013]]

 
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs.
\5\ In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland Southeast Alaska waters (these
  abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). The calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the
  entire stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside waters of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as
  currently designated. The Annual M/SI is for the entire stock, including coastal waters.
\6\ Abundance estimates obtained from Towers et al., 2015.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 2. As described below, all eight species 
(with ten managed stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the 
activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we 
have proposed authorizing it. In addition, northern sea otters may be 
found in Ketchikan. However, sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.

Pinnipeds in the Activity Area

Steller Sea Lion
    The Steller sea lion is the largest of the eared seals, ranging 
along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, with 
centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and 
Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-
wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Subsequently, 
NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for the 
species as a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haulouts and 
rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, 
and three large offshore foraging areas (58 FR 45269; August 27, 1993). 
In 1997, NMFS reclassified Steller sea lions as two distinct population 
segments (DPS) based on genetic studies and other information (62 FR 
24345; May 5, 1997). Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur 
west of 144[deg] W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western DPS 
(wDPS), while all others comprise the eastern DPS (eDPS); however, 
there is regular movement of both DPSs across this boundary (Jemison et 
al., 2013). Upon this reclassification, the wDPS was listed as 
endangered while the eDPS remained as threatened (62 FR 24345; May 5, 
1997) and in November 2013, the eDPS was delisted (78 FR 66140). Only 
the eDPS considered in this proposed IHA.
    Steller sea lions are common in the inside waters of southeastern 
Alaska. They are residents of the project vicinity and are common year-
round in the action area (Freitag 2017). Critical habitat has been 
defined in Southeast Alaska at major haulouts and major rookeries (50 
CFR 226.202). The nearest rookery to action area is Forrester Island, 
and the nearest major haulouts are at Timbered Island and Cape 
Addington (NMFS 1993). All three sites are about 130 kilometers west 
across Klawock Island from Ketchikan. Steller sea lions are known to 
haul out on land, docks, buoys, and navigational markers, however, 
there are no established haulout sites in Tongass Narrows (HDR 2003) 
and other haulout sites are far beyond in-air noise disturbance 
threshold for hauled-out pinnipeds as described in Section 1.3 of the 
IHA application. Grindall Island, 12 miles west of the northern tip of 
Gravina Island, is a year-round sea lion haulout but not a rookery, and 
appears to be the haulout area nearest the project area.
Harbor Seal
    Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts 
of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast 
Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the 
Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the 
Pribilof Islands. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 
glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh 
waters. Harbor seals are generally non-migratory, with local movements 
associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food 
availability, and reproduction (Muto, 2017a).
    Harbor seals in Alaska are partitioned into 12 separate stocks 
based largely on genetic structure: (1) The Aleutian Islands stock,(2) 
the Pribilof Islands stock, (3) the Bristol Bay stock, (4) the North 
Kodiak stock, (5) the South Kodiak stock, (6) the Prince William Sound 
stock, (7) the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock, (8) the Glacier Bay/Icy 
Strait stock, (9) the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock, (10) the 
Sitka/Chatham stock, (11) the Dixon/Cape Decision stock, and (12) the 
Clarence Strait stock. Only the Clarence Strait stock stock is 
considered in this proposed IHA. The range of this stock includes the 
east coast of Prince of Wales Island from Cape Chacon north through 
Clarence Strait to Point Baker and along the east coast of Mitkof and 
Kupreanof Islands north to Bay Point, including Ernest Sound, Behm 
Canal, and Pearse Cana (Muto, 2017a).
    Harbor seals are common in the inside waters of southeastern 
Alaska. They are residents of the action area and can occur on any 
given day in the action area, although they tend to be more abundant in 
the summer. There are no known haul outs located close to the site 
where pile installation and removal will occur (Freitag 2017).

Cetaceans in the Activity Area

Humpback Whale
    The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins. In 
winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical 
waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and migrate to high 
latitudes in the summer to feed. The historic summer feeding range of 
humpback whales in the North Pacific encompassed coastal and inland 
waters around the Pacific Rim from Point Conception, California, north 
to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian 
Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk and 
north of the Bering Strait (Johnson and Wolman 1984).
    Under the MMPA, there are three stocks of humpback whales in the 
North Pacific: (1) The California/Oregon/Washington and Mexico stock, 
consisting of winter/spring populations in coastal Central America and 
coastal Mexico which migrate to the coast of California to southern 
British Columbia in summer/fall; (2) the central North Pacific stock, 
consisting of winter/spring populations of the Hawaiian Islands which 
migrate primarily to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the 
Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; and (3) the 
western North Pacific stock, consisting of winter/spring populations 
off Asia which migrate primarily to Russia and the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands. The central north Pacific stock is the only stock that is 
found near the project activities.
    On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final rule dividing the 
globally listed endangered species into 14 DPSs, removing the worldwide 
species-level listing, and in its place listing four DPSs as endangered 
and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; effective October 11, 2016). 
Two DPSs (Hawaii and Mexico) are potentially present within the action 
area. The Hawaii DPS is not listed and the Mexico DPS is listed as 
threatened under the

[[Page 22014]]

ESA. The Hawaii DPS is estimated to contain 11,398 animals where the 
Mexico DPS is estimated to contain 3,264 animals.
    The humpback whales that forage throughout British Colombia and 
Southeast Alaska undertake seasonal migrations from their tropical 
calving and breeding grounds in winter to their high- latitude feeding 
grounds in summer. They may be seen at any time of year in Alaska, but 
most animals winter in temperate or tropical waters near Hawaii. In the 
spring, the animals migrate back to Alaska where food is abundant.
    Within Southeast Alaska, humpback whales are found throughout all 
major waterways and in a variety of habitats, including open-ocean 
entrances, open-strait environments, near-shore waters, area with 
strong tidal currents, and secluded bays and inlets. They tend to 
concentrate in several areas, including northern Southeast Alaska. 
Patterns of occurrence likely follow the spatial and temporal changes 
in prey abundance and distribution with humpback whales adjusting their 
foraging locations to areas of high prey density (NMFS 2012).
    Humpback whales may be found in and around Gravina Island in the 
Tongass Narrows and Revillagigedo Channel at any given time. Humpback 
whales are most likely to occur in the action area during periods of 
seasonal prey aggregations which typically occur in spring and can 
occur in summer and fall (Freitag 2017). Herring salmon, eulachon, and 
euphausiids (krill) are among the species that congregate ephemerally 
(HDR 2003). When humpback whales come into the Narrows to feed, they 
often stay in the channel for a few days at a time (Freitag 2017). 
While many humpback whales migrate to tropical calving and breeding 
grounds in winter, they have been observed in Southeast Alaska in all 
months of the year (Straley 2017). Given their widespread range and 
their opportunistic foraging strategies, humpback whales may be in the 
action area year-round during the proposed project activities.
Minke Whale
    Minke whales are found throughout the northern hemisphere in polar, 
temperate, and tropical waters. In the North Pacific, minke whales 
occur from the Bering and Chukchi seas south to near the Equator 
(Leatherwood et al., 1982). In Alaska, the minke whale diet consists 
primarily of euphausiids and walleye pollock. Minke whales are 
generally found in shallow, coastal waters within 200 meters of shore 
(Zerbini et al., 2006) and are usually solitary or in small groups of 2 
to 3. Rarely, loose aggregations of up to 400 animals have been 
associated with feeding areas in arctic latitudes. In Alaska, seasonal 
movements are associated with feeding areas that are generally located 
at the edge of the pack ice (NMFS 2014). Surveys in southeast Alaska 
have consistently identified individuals throughout inland waters in 
low numbers (Dahlheim et al., 2009).
    Minke whales are rare in the action area, but they could be 
encountered during any given day of dock construction. Minke whales do 
come into Herring Cove in George Inlet, approximately 5 kilometers 
north of the action area, to feed (Freitag 2017). Minke whales are 
usually sighted individually or in small groups of 2-3, but there are 
reports of loose aggregations of hundreds of animals (NMFS 2018).
Killer Whale
    Killer whales have been observed in all the world's oceans, but the 
highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found at 
high latitudes (NMFS 2016a). Killer whales occur along the entire 
Alaska coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and 
along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Muto et 
al., 2017a).
    Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements, 
and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized 
within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This proposed 
IHA considers only the Alaska resident stock, northern resident and the 
west coast transient, all other stocks occur outside the geographic 
area under consideration (Muto et al., 2017a).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
    Pacific white-sided dolphins are a pelagic species. They are found 
throughout the temperate North Pacific Ocean, north of the coasts of 
Japan and Baja California, Mexico. (Muto et al. 2016). They are most 
common between the latitudes of 38[deg] N and 47[deg] N (from 
California to Washington). The distribution and abundance of Pacific 
white-sided dolphins may be affected by large-scale oceanographic 
occurrences, such as El Ni[ntilde]o and by underwater acoustic 
deterrent devices (NMFS 2018a).
    Pacific white-sided dolphins are rare action area, because they are 
pelagic and prefer more open water habitats than are found in Tongass 
Narrows and Revillagigedo Channel, but they could be encountered during 
any given day of dock construction (Freitag 2017). Pacific-white sided 
dolphins have been observed in Alaska waters in groups ranging from 20 
to 164 animals, with the sighting of 164 animals occurring in Southeast 
Alaska near Dixon Entrance (Muto et al., 2016a).
Harbor Porpoise
    The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic 
waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point 
Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoise 
primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most frequently in waters 
less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). They may occasionally be 
found in deeper offshore waters.
    In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three 
stocks, based primarily on geography: (1) The Southeast Alaska stock--
occurring from the northern border of British Columbia to Cape 
Suckling, Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock--occurring from Cape 
Suckling to Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea stock--occurring 
throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass. 
Only the Southeast Alaska stock is considered in this proposed IHA 
because the other stocks are not found in the geographic area under 
consideration.
    There are no subsistence use of this species; however, entanglement 
in fishing gear contributes to human-caused mortality and serious 
injury. Muto et al. (2017a) also reports harbor porpoise are vulnerable 
to physical modifications of nearshore habitats resulting from urban 
and industrial development (including waste management and nonpoint 
source runoff) and activities such as construction of docks and other 
over-water structures, filling of shallow areas, dredging, and noise 
(Linnenschmidt et al., 2013). Near the project area, harbor porpoises 
are more common in open waters on the outside of Gravina Island; 
however, they are known to pass through Tongass Narrows and 
Revillagigedo Channel year-round (Freitag 2017).
Dall's Porpoise
    Dall's porpoise are widely distributed across the entire North 
Pacific Ocean. They are found over the continental shelf adjacent to 
the slope and over deep (2,500\+\ meters) oceanic waters (Hall 1979). 
They have been sighted throughout the North Pacific as far north as 
65[deg] N (Buckland et al., 1993) and as far south as 28[deg] N in the 
eastern North Pacific (Leatherwood and Fielding 1974). The only 
apparent distribution gaps in Alaska waters are upper Cook

[[Page 22015]]

Inlet and the shallow eastern flats of the Bering Sea. Throughout most 
of the eastern North Pacific they are present during all months of the 
year, although there may be seasonal onshore-offshore movements along 
the west coast of the continental United States (Loeb 1972, Leatherwood 
and Fielding 1974) and winter movements of populations out of areas 
with ice such as Prince William Sound (Hall 1979).
    Dall's porpoises are seen infrequently in the action area, but they 
could be encountered during any given day of dock construction. In the 
Ketchikan vicinity, Dall's porpoises typically occur in groups of 10-15 
animals, with an estimated maximum group size of 20 animals. Dall's 
porpoises have been observed passing through the action area 0-1 times 
a month (Freitag 2017).

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To 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 
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with 
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the 
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower 
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and 
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 
kilohertz (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. 
Eight marine mammal species (six cetacean and two pinniped (one otariid 
and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with 
the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the 
cetacean species that may be present, two are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), two are classified 
as a mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., killer whale and Pacific white-sided 
dolphin), and two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., 
harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise).

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.

Description of Sound

    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance 
between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer 
wavelengths than higher frequency sounds. Amplitude is the height of 
the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically 
measured using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured 
pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant 
pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic 
unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, 
relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in 
sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the 
sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of 
underwater sound pressure to one microPascal ([mu]Pa). One pascal is 
the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area 
of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level 
at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa). The 
received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that 
all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a 
pressure of 1 [micro]Pa and all airborne sound levels in this document 
are referenced to a pressure of 20 [micro]Pa.
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the 
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square 
root of the average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and 
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so 
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels 
(Hastings and Popper 2005). This measurement is often used in the 
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral 
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed 
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately

[[Page 22016]]

compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater 
sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to 
ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is 
directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound 
waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made 
sound receptors such as hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient 
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a 
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level 
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated 
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., 
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds 
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic 
sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of 
sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following 
(Richardson et al., 1995):
     Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and 
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of 
naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 
kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to 
increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes 
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 
during heavy surf conditions.
     Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the 
water surface can become an important component of total noise at 
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 
times.
     Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to 
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band 
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 
kHz.
     Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human 
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), 
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic 
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise 
typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 
and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 
below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they 
attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable 
anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a 
passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to 
ambient sound.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate 
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, 
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the 
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local 
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine 
mammals.

Description of Sound Sources

    In-water construction activities associated with the project would 
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, and 
drilling. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two 
general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive (defined in the 
following). The distinction between these two sound types is important 
because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, 
particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et 
al., 2007). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth 
discussion of these concepts.
    Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI 1986; Harris 1998; NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003; ANSI 2005) and occur 
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Impulsive 
sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient 
pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period 
that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and 
minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce 
physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
    Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief 
or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI 
1995; NIOSH 1998). Some of these non-impulsive sounds can be transient 
signals of short duration but without the essential properties of 
impulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-impulsive sounds 
include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such 
as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar 
systems. The duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be 
greatly extended in a highly reverberant environment.
    Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a 
pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact 
hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a 
potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005). Vibratory 
hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the 
hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce 
significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB 
or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated 
during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 
2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of 
injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time 
(Nedwell and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al., 2005). Drilling to insert 
the steel piles (not for tension anchors) will be operated by a down-
hole hammer (also known as socket drilling). A down-hole hammer is a 
drill bit that drills through the bedrock using an impulse mechanism 
that functions at the bottom of the hole. This impulsive bit breaks up 
rock to allow removal of debris and insertion of the pile. The head 
extends so that the drilling takes place below the pile. The impulsive 
sounds produced by the hammer method are continuous and reduces sound 
attenuation because the noise is primarily contained within the steel 
pile and below ground rather than impact hammer driving methods which 
occur at the top of the pile (R&M 2016).

Acoustic Impacts

    Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound 
levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, 
from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on 
received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and

[[Page 22017]]

various other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from 
active acoustic sources can potentially result in one or more of the 
following; temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory 
physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and 
masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 
2007; Southall et al., 2007; Gotz et al., 2009). The degree of effect 
is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, 
distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In 
general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can 
longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of 
hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's 
hearing range. We first describe specific manifestations of acoustic 
effects before providing discussion specific to KDC's construction 
activities.
    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of 
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a 
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing 
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be 
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to 
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone 
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and 
of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological 
responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high 
intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause 
discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying 
these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e., 
when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to 
detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing 
threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.
    We describe the more severe effects (i.e., permanent hearing 
impairment, certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects) 
only briefly as we do not expect that there is a reasonable likelihood 
that KDC's activities may result in such effects (see below for further 
discussion). Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to 
lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing 
threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at 
certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; 
Finneran et al., 2002, 2005b). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case 
the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary 
(TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over 
time (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS 
could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be total or partial 
deafness, while in most cases the animal has an impaired ability to 
hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985).
    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue 
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other 
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of 
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical 
injury (e.g., Ward 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to 
constitute auditory injury.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals--PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal 
(Kastak et al., 2008)--but are assumed to be similar to those in humans 
and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels 
at least several dB above a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS 
onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974 found that inducing mild 
TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift) approximates TTS onset (e.g., Southall et 
al., 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 
assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as 
impact pile driving sounds received close to the source) are at least 6 
dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS 
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than 
TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). 
Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary 
to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that 
PTS could occur.
    TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during 
exposure to sound (Kryter 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing 
threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be 
heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 
sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data 
on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been 
obtained for marine mammals.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to 
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate 
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency 
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there 
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during a time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus 
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena 
asiaeorientalis) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant 
seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number 
of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 
laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 
2004; Kastak et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In 
general, harbor seals (Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a) 
and harbor porpoises (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have 
a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species. 
Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited 
number of individuals within these species. There are no data available 
on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on 
TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset 
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran and Jenkins 
(2012).
    In addition to PTS and TTS, there is a potential for non-auditory 
physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in 
marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary 
effect of extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as 
a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound. These 
impacts can include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance 
effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; 
Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack 2007). KDC's activities do not 
involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency active 
sonar that are associated with these types of effects.
    When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is 
incapable of returning to sea, the event

[[Page 22018]]

is termed a ``stranding'' (16 U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are 
known to strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, 
biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual 
oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of 
these stressors sustained concurrently or in series (e.g., Geraci et 
al., 1999). However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown 
(e.g., Best 1982). Combinations of dissimilar stressors may combine to 
kill an animal or dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one 
exposure without the other would not be expected to produce the same 
outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For further description of stranding 
events see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2013; Wright et 
al., 2013.

Behavioral Effects

    Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including 
subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area 
or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar 
behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe 
reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality 
habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic 
factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current 
activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 
well as the interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; 
Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et 
al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals 
but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a 
sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 
2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the 
sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of 
sources, distance from the source). Please see Appendices B-C of 
Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal 
behavioral responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud-impulsive sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic 
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance 
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and 
Symonds 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 
However, there are broad categories of potential response, which we 
describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung 2003; Nowacek et al., 
2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). Variations in dive behavior may 
reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., 
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact 
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure 
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the 
type and magnitude of the response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005b, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
(Eubalaena glacialis) have been observed to shift the frequency content 
of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of 
increased anthropogenic noise

[[Page 22019]]

(Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, animals may cease sound 
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path because of the presence of a sound or other stressors, 
and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine 
mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
(Eschrictius robustus) are known to change direction--deflecting from 
customary migratory paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys 
(Malme et al., 1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals 
returning to the area once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 
1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey 
et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may 
lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected 
species in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the 
sound does not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 
2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of 
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine 
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight 
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight response could range from brief, 
temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal 
provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (Evans 
and England 2001). However, it should be noted that response to a 
perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves 
2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence 
the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.

Stress Responses

    An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger 
stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral 
responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine 
responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 2000). In many 
cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of 
energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential 
stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically 
involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 
activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or 
may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano 
et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g., 
Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that 
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).

Acoustic Effects, Underwater

    Potential Effects of DTH drilling and Pile Driving--The effects of 
sounds from DTH drilling and pile driving might include one or more of 
the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory 
physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking 
(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; 
Southall et al., 2007). The effects of pile driving or drilling on 
marine mammals are

[[Page 22020]]

dependent on several factors, including the type and depth of the 
animal; the pile size and type, and the intensity and duration of the 
pile driving or drilling sound; the substrate; the standoff distance 
between the pile and the animal; and the sound propagation properties 
of the environment. Impacts to marine mammals from pile driving and DTH 
drilling activities are expected to result primarily from acoustic 
pathways. As such, the degree of effect is intrinsically related to the 
frequency, received level, and duration of the sound exposure, which 
are in turn influenced by the distance between the animal and the 
source. The further away from the source, the less intense the exposure 
should be. The substrate and depth of the habitat affect the sound 
propagation properties of the environment. In addition, substrates that 
are soft (e.g., sand) would absorb or attenuate the sound more readily 
than hard substrates (e.g., rock), which may reflect the acoustic wave. 
Soft porous substrates would also likely require less time to drive the 
pile, and possibly less forceful equipment, which would ultimately 
decrease the intensity of the acoustic source.
    In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could be 
expected to include physiological and behavioral responses to the 
acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). Potential effects from 
impulsive sound sources like pile driving can range in severity from 
effects such as behavioral disturbance to temporary or permanent 
hearing impairment (Yelverton et al., 1973). Due to the nature of the 
pile driving sounds in the project, behavioral disturbance is the most 
likely effect from the proposed activity. Marine mammals exposed to 
high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience 
hearing threshold shifts. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS does not 
(Southall et al., 2007). Due to the use of pile caps and shutdown 
procedures discussed in detail in the Proposed Mitigation Section, it 
is highly unlikely for PTS or TTS to occur.

Non-Auditory Physiological Effects

    Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically 
might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound 
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance 
effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; 
Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining such effects are limited. In 
general, little is known about the potential for pile driving or 
removal to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in 
marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur 
at all, would presumably be limited to short distances from the sound 
source and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The 
available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level 
above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al., 
2007) or any meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if 
any) of marine mammals that might be affected in those ways. Marine 
mammals that show behavioral avoidance of pile driving, including some 
odontocetes and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur 
auditory impairment or non-auditory physical effects.

Disturbance Reactions

    Responses to continuous sound, such as vibratory pile installation, 
have not been documented as well as responses to impulsive sounds. With 
both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving 
could result in temporary, short-term changes in an animal's typical 
behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral 
changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): 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 sound sources are located; and/
or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts 
or rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time, possibly to 
avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). If a marine mammal 
responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through 
relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization 
behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the 
individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as 
a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an 
important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on 
animals, and if so potentially on the stock or species, could 
potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 
2007).
    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, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications 
that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or 
reproduction include:
     Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as 
those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Longer-term habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable 
acoustic environment; and
     Longer-term cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and 
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals 
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007).

Auditory Masking

    Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking. The 
frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in 
determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated 
from in-water pile driving and removal and DTH drilling is mostly 
concentrated at low-frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high 
frequency echolocation sounds made by porpoises. The most intense 
underwater sounds in the proposed action are those produced by impact 
pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of pile driving covers 
a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these sources would likely be 
within the audible range of marine mammals present in the project area. 
Impact pile driving activity is relatively short-term, with rapid 
impulsive sounds occurring for approximately fifteen minutes per pile. 
The probability for impact pile driving resulting from this proposed 
action masking acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival 
of marine mammal species is low. Vibratory pile driving is also 
relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations occurring for 
approximately one and a half hours per pile. It is possible that 
vibratory pile driving resulting from this proposed action may mask 
acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine 
mammal species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area 
would result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event 
that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would 
occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already 
estimated for DTH drilling and vibratory and impact pile driving, and 
which

[[Page 22021]]

have already been taken into account in the exposure analysis.

Acoustic Effects, Airborne

    Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to 
airborne sounds associated with pile driving and removal and DTH 
drilling that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, 
depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are 
not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in 
harassment as defined under the MMPA.
    Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are 
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise 
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that 
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may 
result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above 
water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses 
similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For 
instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to 
exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in 
vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move 
further from the source. However, these animals would previously have 
been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the 
behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than 
those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment 
of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of 
potential take. Multiple instances of exposure to sound above NMFS' 
thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed to result in 
increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or intensity of 
disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization 
of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is 
warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The proposed activities at the project area would not result in 
permanent negative impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, 
but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as 
forage fish and may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion 
above). There are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom 
structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals 
present in the marine waters of the project area during the 
construction window. The project area is located in an industrial and 
commercial shipping marina. Therefore, the main impact issue associated 
with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels 
and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed 
previously in this document. The primary potential acoustic impacts to 
marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels 
produced by vibratory and impact pile driving and removal and drilling 
in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding 
habitat from physical disturbance are also possible, although this will 
be minimal since construction is occurring in an already industrial and 
commercial shipping area.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Prey (Fish)

    Construction activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory 
pile driving and DTH drilling) and impulsive (i.e., impact driving) 
sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or 
intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can 
cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. 
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish 
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies 
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are 
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction 
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). 
Sound impulsive sounds at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle 
changes in fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes 
in behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of 
sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish 
mortality.
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving and drilling 
activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance 
of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile 
driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, 
distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine 
mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the 
short timeframe (22 days) for the project.

Pile Driving Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat

    The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small 
compared to the available habitat in Ketchikan. Avoidance by potential 
prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate area due to the temporary loss of 
this foraging habitat is also possible. The duration of fish avoidance 
of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to 
normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. Any 
behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave 
significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in 
the nearby vicinity of Ketchikan's Berth IV dock.
    The duration of the construction activities is relatively short. 
The construction window is for a maximum of 22 days and each day, 
construction activities would only occur for a few hours during the 
day. Impacts to habitat and prey are expected to be minimal based on 
the short duration of activities.
    In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with 
individual pile driving and drilling events and the relatively small 
areas being affected, pile driving and drilling activities associated 
with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse 
effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, any 
impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant 
or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their 
populations.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS's 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 primarily be by Level B harassment, as use 
of impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving/removal, and drilling 
has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for 
individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory 
injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for harbor seals and 
harbor porpoises due to larger predicted auditory injury zones. 
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for other species. The proposed 
mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the

[[Page 22022]]

severity of such taking to the extent practicable.
    As described previously, no mortality or serious injury 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 hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that 
will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed or experience TTS (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.
    KDC's proposed construction activity includes the use of continuous 
(vibratory pile driving and drilling) and impulsive (impact pile 
driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms 
thresholds for Level B behavioral harassment are applicable.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to 
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine 
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to 
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 
KDC's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile 
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and drilling) 
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 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE has a
  reference value of 1[mu]Pa. 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 wieghted 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.
    Reference sound levels used by KDC for all vibratory and impact 
piling activities were derived from source level data from construction 
projects at the Port of Anchorage (Austin et al., 2016) and Ketchikan 
Ferry Terminal (Denes et al., 2016). To determine the ensonfied areas 
for both the Level A and Level B zones for vibratory piling of 48-inch 
and 36-inch steel piles, KDC used Sound Pressure Levels (SPLs) of 168.2 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms and 161.9 dB dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms, respectively. These 
were derived from vibratory pile driving data (of the same pile sizes) 
during the Port of Anchorage test pile project (Austin et al., 2016, 
Tables 9 and 16).
    For impact pile driving, KDC used both SPLs and Sound Exposure 
Levels (SEL) derived from SSV studies conducted on 48-inch steel piles 
during the Port of Anchorage test pile project. To determine Level A 
ensonified zones from impact piling, KDC utilized an SEL of 186.7 dB. 
When determining Level A zones, SELs are more accurate than SPLs, as 
they incorporate the pulse duration explicitly rather than assuming a 
proxy pulse duration and they provide a more refined estimation of 
impacts. However, to determine the Level B zone

[[Page 22023]]

for impact piling, an SPL of 198.6 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms was used. In 
addition, for drilling, KDC used a reference sound level of 167.7 dB re 
1 [mu]Pa rms from SSV studies conducted during drilling activities at 
the Kodiak Ferry Terminal to calculate both the Level A and Level B 
ensonified zones for the Berth IV Expansion project. More information 
on the source levels used are presented in Table 4 below.

                     Table 4--Project Source Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Source level
                        Activity                           at 10 meters
                                                               (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel removal (2 piles) (~1 hour on 1 day) 1....     2 161.9 SPL
30-inch steel removal (6 piles) (~1 hour per day on 2        2 161.9 SPL
 days)..................................................
36-inch steel removal (4 piles) (~1 hour on 1 day)......     2 168.2 SPL
30-inch steel temporary installation (16 piles) (~2          2 161.9 SPL
 hours per day on 4 days)...............................
30-inch steel permanent installation (1 pile) (~2 hours      2 161.9 SPL
 on 1 day)..............................................
48-inch steel permanent installation (17 piles) (~2          2 168.2 SPL
 hours per day on 9 days)...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-inch steel permanent installation (17 piles) (~15          186.7 SEL/
 minutes per day on 6 days).............................     3 198.6 SPL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Socketing Pile Installation (Drilling)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel permanent installation (1 pile) (~3 hours      4 167.7 SPL
 on 1 day)..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This project will only remove two 24-inch diameter steel piles total
  for a maximum of 30 minutes of removal in one day. However, because a
  maximum of 4 pile could be removed each day, we used 1 hour (the time
  it would take to remove four piles) of removal time instead of 30
  minutes to calculate the distance threshold.
2 The 36-inch and 48-inch diameter pile source levels are proxy from
  median measured source levels from pile driving of 48-inch piles for
  the Port of Anchorage test pile project (Austin et al. 2016, Tables 9
  and 16). The 24-inch and 30-inch diameter source levels are proxy from
  median measured sources levels from pile driving of 30-inch diameter
  piles to construct the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal (Denes et al. 2016,
  Table 72).
3 Sound pressure level root-mean-square (SPL rms) values were used to
  calculate distance to Level B harassment isopleths for impact pile
  driving. The source level of 186.7 SEL is the median measured from the
  Port of Anchorage test pile project for 48-inch piles (Austin et al.
  2016, Table 9). We calculated the distances to Level A thresholds
  assuming 200 strikes in 1 hour and 15 minutes of work in 24 hours.
4 The 30-inch diameter socketing source level is proxy from mean
  measured sources levels from drilling of 24-inch diameter piles to
  construct the Kodiak Ferry Terminal (Denes et al. 2016, Table 72).

Level B Zones

    The practical spreading model was used by KDC to generate the Level 
B harassment zones for all piling and drilling activities. Practical 
Spreading, a form of transmission loss, is described in full detail 
below.
    Pile driving and drilling generates underwater noise that can 
potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project 
area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as 
an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters 
vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and 
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition 
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * log10(R1/R2),

Where:

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement.

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is 
assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound 
propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of 
factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of 
reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and 
sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed 
(free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, 
resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of 
distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs 
in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water 
surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level 
for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A 
practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions where 
water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the 
shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would 
lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.
    Utilizing the practical spreading loss model, KDC determined 
underwater noise will fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 
120 dB rms for marine mammals at a max radial distance of 16,343 meters 
and 15,136 meters for vibratory piling and drilling, respectively.\2\ 
With these radial distances, and due to the occurrence of landforms 
(See Figure 5 of IHA Application), the largest Level B zone calculated 
for vibratory piling and drilling equaled 10.3 km\2\. For calculating 
the Level B zone for impact driving, the practical spreading loss model 
was used with a behavioral threshold of 160 dB rms. The maximum radial 
distance of the Level B ensonified zone for impact piling equaled 3,744 
meters. At this radial distance, the entire Level B zone for impact 
piling equaled 4.9 km\2\. Table 5 below provides all Level B radial 
distances and their corresponding areas for each activity during KDC's 
Berth IV Expansion project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These distances represent calculated distances based on the 
practical spreading model; however, landforms will block sound 
transmission at closer distances. The farthest distance that sound 
will transmit from the source is 13,755 m before transmission is 
stopped by Annette Island.

[[Page 22024]]



  Table 5--Level B Zones Calculated Using the Practical Spreading Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Level B zone
                 Source                    Level B zones      (square
                                             (meters)       kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Vibratory Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel removal (2 piles) (~1 hour           6,215             5.9
 on 1 day3).............................
30-inch steel removal (6 piles) (~1 hour           6,215             5.9
 per day on 2 days).....................
36-inch steel removal (4 piles) (~1 hour        * 16,343            10.3
 on 1 day)..............................
30-inch steel temporary installation (16           6,215             5.9
 piles) (~2 hours per day on 4 days)....
30-inch steel permanent installation (1            6,215             5.9
 pile) (~2 hours on 1 day)..............
48-inch steel permanent installation (17        * 16,343            10.3
 piles) (~2 hours per day on 9 days)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-inch steel (17 piles) (~15 minutes              3,745             4.9
 per day on 6 days).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Socketing Pile Installation (Drilling)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel (1 pile) (~3 hours on 1           * 15,136            10.3
 day)...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These distances represent calculated distances based on the practical
  spreading model; however, landforms will block sound transmission at
  closer distances. The farthest distance that sound will transmit from
  the source is 13,755 m before transmission is stopped by Annette
  Island.

Level A Zones

    When NMFS's 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. For stationary sources (i.e., pile driving 
and drilling), NMFS's 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 Level A isopleths are reported below.

                                Table 6--NMFS's Optional User Spreadsheet Inputs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             User spreadsheet input
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Vibratory pile
                                                        Vibratory pile          driver
         Equipment type                  Drill        driver (removal of   (installation of   Impact pile driver
                                                        30-inch and 24-      30-inch steel
                                                       inch steel piles)        piles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used............  Non-impulsive,      Non-impulsive,      Non-impulsive,      Impulsive, Non-
                                   continuous.         continuous.         continuous.         continuous.
Source Level....................  167.7 SPL.........  161.9 SPL.........  161.9 SPL.........  186.7 SEL.
Weighting Factor Adjustment       2.................  2.5...............  2.5...............  2.
 (kHz).
(a) Activity duration within 24   (a) 3.............  (a) 1.............  (a) 2.............  (b) 200.
 hours; (b) Number of strikes
 per hour.
Propagation (xLogR).............  15................  15................  15................  15.
Distance of source level          10................  10................  10................  10.
 measurement (meters) +.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table 7--NMFS Optional User Spreadsheet Outputs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             User spreadsheet output
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       High-
           Source type             Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              PTS isopleth (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling........................              40             2.3              35            21.4             1.6
Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal               7.8             0.7            11.6             4.8             0.3
 of 30-inch and 24-inch steel
 piles).........................
Vibratory Pile Driver                       12.4             1.1            18.4             7.6             0.5
 (Installation of 30-inch steel
 piles).........................
Impact Pile Driver..............           239.2             8.5           284.9           128.0             9.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22025]]

 
                                           Daily ensonified area (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling........................           0.003        0.000008           0.002         0.00078        0.000004
Vibratory Pile Driver (Removal            0.0001       0.0000008          0.0002         0.00004       0.0000001
 of 30-inch and 24-inch steel
 piles).........................
Vibratory Pile Driver                     0.0002        0.000002          0.0005         0.00009       0.0000004
 (Installation of 30-inch steel
 piles).........................
Impact Pile Driver..............            0.09          0.0001            0.13            0.03          0.0001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Potential exposures to impact pile driving, vibratory 
pile driving/removal and drilling noises for each acoustic threshold 
were estimated using group size estimates and local observational data. 
As previously stated, Level B take as well as small numbers of Level A 
take will be will be considered for this action. Level B and Level A 
take are calculated differently for some species based on monthly and 
daily sightings data based on Freitag (2017) and average group sizes 
within the action area. Below gives a description of estimated habitat 
use and group sizes for the eight species of marine mammals known to 
occur within the action area.
Humpback Whale
    Humpback whales frequent the action area and could be encountered 
during any given day of dock construction. In the project vicinity, 
humpback whales typically occur in groups of 1-2 animals, with an 
estimated maximum group size of four animals. Humpback whales can pass 
through the action area 0-3 times a month (Freitag 2017).
Minke Whale
    Minke whales are rare in the action area, but they could be 
encountered during any given day of dock construction. These whales are 
usually sighted individually or in small groups of 2-3, but there are 
reports of loose aggregations of hundreds of animals (NMFS 2018). 
Freitag (2017) estimates that a group of three whales may occur near or 
within the action over the four-month period.
Killer Whales
    Killer whales pass through the action area and could be encountered 
during any given day of dock construction. In the project vicinity, 
typical killer whale pod size varies from between 1-2 and 7-10 
individuals, with an estimated maximum group size of 10 animals. Killer 
whales are estimated to pass through the action area one time a month 
(Freitag 2017).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
    Pacific white-sided dolphins are rare in the action area, but they 
could be encountered during any given day of dock construction (Freitag 
2017). Pacific-white sided dolphins have been observed in Alaska waters 
in groups ranging from 20 to 164 animals (Muto et al 2016a).
Dall's Porpoise
    Dall's porpoises are seen infrequently in the action area (Freitag 
2017), but they could be encountered during any given day of dock 
construction. In the project vicinity, Dall's porpoises typically occur 
in groups of 10-15 animals, with an estimated maximum group size of 20 
animals. Dall's porpoises have been observed passing through the action 
area 0-1 times a month (Freitag 2017).
Harbor Porpoise
    Harbor porpoises are seen infrequently in the action area, but they 
could be encountered during any given day of dock construction. In the 
project vicinity, harbor porpoises typically occur in groups of one to 
five animals, with an estimated maximum group size of eight animals. 
Harbor porpoises have been observed passing through the action area 0-1 
times a month (Freitag 2017).
Harbor Seals
    Harbor seals are common in the action area and are expected to be 
encountered in low numbers during dock construction. In the action area 
harbor seals typically occur in groups of one to three animals, with an 
estimated maximum group size of three animals. Harbor seals can occur 
every day of the month in the project area (Freitag 2017).
Steller Sea Lions
    Steller sea lions are common in the action area and are expected to 
be encountered in low numbers during dock construction. In the project 
vicinity Steller sea lions typically occur in groups of 1-10 animals 
(Freitag 2017), with an estimated maximum group size of 80 animals (HDR 
2003). Steller sea lions can occur every day of the month in the 
project area (Freitag 2017).

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. Table 8 below shows 
take as a percentage of population for each of the species.
Humpback Whale
    Based on observational and group data it is estimated that a group 
of 2 humpback whales may occur within the Level B harassment zone three 
times each month over the four-month construction window during active 
pile driving (2 animals in a group x 3 groups each month x 4 months = 
24 animals). Therefore, NMFS proposed to authorize 24 Level B takes of 
humpback whales.
Minke Whale
    Based on local sighting information (Freitag 2017), it is estimated 
that a group of three whales may occur within the Level B harassment 
zone once over the four-month construction window during active pile 
driving (three animals in a group x one group in four months = 3 
animals). Therefore, NMFS proposed to authorize three Level B takes of 
minke whale.
Killer Whales
    Based on observational and group data it is estimated that a group 
of 10 killer whales may occur within the Level B harassment zone one 
time each month over the four-month construction window during active 
pile driving (10 animals in a group x 1 group each

[[Page 22026]]

month x 4 months = 40 animals). Therefore, NMFS proposed to authorize 
40 Level B takes of killer whales. (To clarify, this request is for 40 
takes from all stocks combined, not 40 takes from each stock).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
    Based on observational and group data it is estimated that a group 
of 92 (median between 20 and 164) Pacific-white sided dolphins may 
occur within the Level B harassment zone once over the four-month 
construction window during active pile driving (92 animals in a group x 
one group in four months = 92 animals). Therefore, NMFS proposed to 
authorize 92 Level B takes of Pacific white-sided dolphins.
Dall's Porpoise
    Based on observational and group data it is estimated that a group 
of 15 Dall's porpoises may occur within the Level B harassment zone one 
time each month over the four-month construction window during active 
pile driving (15 animals in a group x one group each month x four 
months = 60 animals). Therefore, NMFS proposed to authorize 60 Level B 
takes of Dall's porpoise.
Harbor Porpoise
    Based on observational and group data it is conservatively 
estimated that a group of 5 harbor porpoise may occur within the Level 
B harassment zone once time each month over the four-month construction 
window during active pile driving (five animals in a group x one group 
each month x four months = 20 animals). In addition, NMFS proposes to 
authorize Level A take for one group of harbor porpoises to safeguard 
against the possibility of PSOs not being able detect a group of harbor 
porpoises within their largest corresponding shutdown (see table 9). 
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 20 Level B takes and five Level A 
takes of harbor porpoises.
Harbor Seals
    Based on observational and group data it is conservatively 
estimated that two groups of three harbor seals may occur within the 
Level B harassment zone every day that pile driving may occur, and pile 
driving is estimated to occur on 20 days during the four-month long 
construction duration (three animals in a group x two groups per day x 
20 days = 120 animals). In addition, NMFS proposes to authorize Level A 
take for two groups of harbor seals to safeguard against the 
possibility of PSOs not being able detect a group of harbor seals 
within their largest corresponding shutdown zone (see Table 9). 
Therefore, NMFS proposed to authorize 120 Level B takes and six Level A 
takes of harbor seals.
Steller Sea Lions
    Based on observational and group data it is estimated that a group 
of 10 Steller sea lions may occur within the Level B harassment zone 
every day that pile driving may occur, and pile driving is estimated to 
occur on 20 days during the four-month long construction duration (10 
animals in a group x 20 days = 200 animals). Therefore, NMFS proposed 
to authorize 200 Level B takes of Steller sea lions.

                       Table 8--Proposed Take Estimates as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Percent of
                Species                     Stock (NEST) \a\         Level  A        Level  B          Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale........................  Hawaii DPS (11,398)\b\..               0          \b\ 22            0.20
                                        Mexico DPS (3,264)\b\...                               2            0.03
Minke Whale...........................  Alaska (N/A)............               0               3             N/A
Killer Whale..........................  Alaska Resident (2,347).  ..............  ..............            1.70
                                        Northern Resident (261).               0              40           15.33
                                        West Coast Transient      ..............  ..............       \d\ 16.46
                                         (243).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin...........  North Pacific (26,880)..               0              92            0.34
Dall's Porpoise.......................  Alaska (83,400).........               0              60            0.07
Harbor Porpoise.......................  Southeast Alaska                       5              20            2.56
                                         (975)\c\.
Harbor Seal...........................  Clarence Strait (31,634)               6             120            0.40
Steller Sea Lion......................  Eastern U.S (49,497)....               0             200            0.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Stock estimate from Muto, M. M. et al. 2016. Appendix 2. Stock Summary Table (last revised 12.30.16).NOAA-TM-
  AFSC-355Muto,M.M.,et al. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ak_2016_sars_appendix_2.pdf unless otherwise
  noted.
\b\ Under the MMPA humpback whales are considered a single stock (Central North Pacific); however, we have
  divided them here to account for DPSs listed under the ESA. Based on calculations in Wade et al. 2016, 93.9%
  of the humpback whales in Southeast Alaska are expected to be from the Hawaii DPS and 6.1% are expected to be
  from the Mexico DPS.
\c\ In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises
  within inland Southeast Alaska waters (these abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore,
  they are likely conservative.
\d\ These percentages assume all 40 takes come from each individual stock, thus the percentage should be
  inflated if multiple stocks are actually impacted.

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 (latter not applicable for this action). 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. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be

[[Page 22027]]

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.
    The following mitigation measures are proposed in the IHA:

Timing Restrictions

    All work will be conducted during daylight hours. If poor 
environmental conditions restrict visibility full visibility of the 
shutdown zone, pile installation would be delayed.

Sound Attenuation

    To minimize noise during vibratory and impact pile driving, pile 
caps (pile softening material) will be used. KDC will use high-density 
polyethylene (HDPE) or ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene (UHMW) 
softening material on all templates to eliminate steel on steel noise 
generation.

Shutdown Zone for In-Water Heavy Machinery Work

    For in-water heavy machinery work (using, e.g., standard barges, 
tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or clamshell equipment used to 
place or remove material), a minimum 10 meter shutdown zone shall be 
implemented. If a marine mammal comes within 10 meters of such 
operations, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to 
the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working 
conditions. This type of work could include (but is not limited to) the 
following activities: (1) Vibratory pile driving; (2) movement of the 
barge to the pile location; (3) positioning of the pile on the 
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile); or (4) removal of the 
pile from the water column/substrate via a crane (i.e., deadpull).

Additional Shutdown Zones

    For all pile driving/removal and drilling activities, KDC will 
establish a shutdown zone for a marine mammal species that is greater 
than its corresponding Level A zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is 
generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would 
occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 
entering the defined area). The shutdown zones for each of the pile 
driving and drilling activities are listed below in Table 9.

                                             Table 9--Shutdown Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Shutdown Zones (meters)
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  High-frequency
                                  Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     Cetaceans
             Source                 Cetaceans       Cetaceans        (Dall's      Phocid (harbor   Otariid (sea
                                    (humpback    (killer whale,     porpoise,          seal)           lion)
                                  whale, Minke   Pacific white-       harbor
                                     whale)      sided dolphin)     porpoise)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        In-Water Construction Activities*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Water Heavy                               10              10               10              10              10
 Construction(i.e., Barge
 movements, pile positioning,
 deadpulling, and sound
 attenuation)..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel removal..........              25              25               25              25              25
(2 piles) (~1 hour on 1 day)...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel removal..........              25              25               25              25              25
(6 piles) (~1 hour per day on 2
 days).........................
36-inch steel removal..........              25              25               50              25              25
(4 piles) (~1 hour on 1 day)...
30-inch steel temporary                      25              25               25              25              25
 installation (16 piles) (~2
 hours per day on 4 days)......
30-inch steel permanent                      25              25               25              25              25
 installation (1 pile) (~2
 hours on 1 day)...............
48-inch steel permanent                      50              25               50              25              25
 installation (17 piles) (~2
 hours per day on 9 days)......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Impact Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-inch steel permanent                     240              25              290             130              25
 installation (17 piles).......
(~15 minutes per day on 6 days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Socketing Pile Installation(Drilling)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel permanent                      50              25               50              25              25
 installation..................
(1 pile) (3 hours per day on 1
 day)..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring Zones

    KDC will establish and observe a monitoring zone. The monitoring 
zones for this project are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed 120 
dB rms (for vibratory pile driving and drilling) and 160 dB rms (for 
impact driving) These areas are equal to Level B harassment zones and 
are presented in Table 10 below. These zones provide utility for 
monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone 
monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to 
the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers 
to be aware of and communicate the

[[Page 22028]]

presence of marine mammals in the project area, but outside the 
shutdown zone, and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. 
However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring is for 
documenting instances of Level B harassment; disturbance zone 
monitoring is discussed in detail later (see Proposed Monitoring and 
Reporting).

                       Table 10--Monitoring Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Level B zone
                 Source                    Level B zones      (square
                                             (meters)       kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Vibratory Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel removal (2 piles) (~1 hour           6,215             5.9
 on 1 day 3)............................
30-inch steel removal (6 piles) (~1 hour           6,215             5.9
 per day on 2 days).....................
36-inch steel removal (4 piles) (~1 hour          13,755            10.3
 on 1 day)..............................
30-inch steel temporary installation (16           6,215             5.9
 piles) (~2 hours per day on 4 days)....
30-inch steel permanent installation (1            6,215             5.9
 pile) (~2 hours on 1 day)..............
48-inch steel permanent installation (17          13,755            10.3
 piles) (~2 hours per day on 9 days)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-inch steel (17 piles) (~15 minutes              3,745             4.9
 per day on 6 days).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Socketing Pile Installation (Drilling)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel (1 pile) (~3 hours on 1             13,755            10.3
 day)...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Authorized Take Prohibited

    If a species enters or approaches the Level B zone and that species 
is either not authorized for take or its authorized takes are met, pile 
driving and removal activities must shut down immediately using delay 
and shut-down procedures. Activities must not resume until the animal 
has been confirmed to have left the area or an observation time period 
of 15 minutes has elapsed for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 
minutes for large whales.

Soft Start

    The use of a soft-start procedure are believed to provide 
additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or 
giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the impact 
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors 
will be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer 
at 40 percent energy, each strike followed by no less than a 30-second 
waiting period. This procedure will be conducted a total of three times 
before impact pile driving begins. Soft Start is not required during 
vibratory pile driving and removal activities.

Pre-Activity Monitoring

    Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or 
whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the 
observer will observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 
30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be cleared when a marine mammal has 
not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 
marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot 
proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been observed for 
15 minutes. If the Monitoring zone has been observed for 30 minutes and 
non-permitted species are not present within the zone, soft start 
procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility 
becomes impaired within the Monitoring zone. When a marine mammal 
permitted for Level B take is present in the Monitoring zone, piling 
activities may begin and Level B take will be recorded. As stated 
above, if the entire Level B zone is not visible at the start of 
construction, piling or drilling activities can begin. If work ceases 
for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both the 
Monitoring zone and shutdown zone will commence.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 
effecting the least practicable 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

[[Page 22029]]

marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

    Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 
minutes after all pile driving/removal and drilling activities. In 
addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal 
occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document 
any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being 
driven, removed, or pile holes being drilled. Pile driving and drilling 
activities include the time to install, remove, or drill a hole for a 
single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between 
uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
    Monitoring will be conducted by NMFS approved Protected Species 
Observers (PSOs). The number of PSOs will vary from two to four, 
depending on the type of pile driving and size of pile, which 
determines the size of the harassment zones. Two land-based PSOs will 
monitor during all impact pile driving activity, three land-based PSOs 
will monitor during vibratory pile driving of 36-inch and 48-inch 
diameter piles, and four land-based PSOs will monitor during vibratory 
pile driving of 36-inch and 48-inch diameter piles.
    One PSO will be stationed at Berth IV and will be able to view 
across Tongass Narrows south and west to Gravina Island. The second and 
third PSOs will be located in increments along the road systems at 
locations that provide the best vantage points for viewing Tongass 
Narrows west and east of Berth IV. These locations will vary depending 
on type of pile driving. The fourth PSO will be located on the road 
system near Mountain Point and will be able to view Tongass Narrows to 
the northwest and Revillagigedo Channel to the southeast.
    Monitoring of pile driving shall be conducted by qualified, NMFS 
approved PSOs, who shall have no other assigned tasks during monitoring 
periods. KDC shall adhere to the following conditions when selecting 
observers:
     Independent PSOs shall be used (i.e., not construction 
personnel).
     At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a 
marine mammal observer during construction activities.
     Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological 
science or related field) or training for experience.
     Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead 
observer or monitoring coordinator shall be designated. The lead 
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer 
during construction.
     KDC shall submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS.
    KDC shall ensure that observers have the following additional 
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;
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation 
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); 
and marine mammal behavior;
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary; and
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operations to provide for personal safety during 
observations.
    KDC shall submit a draft report to NMFS not later than 90 days 
following the end of construction activities. KDC shall provide a final 
report within 30 days following resolution of NMFS' comments on the 
draft report. Reports shall contain, at minimum, the following:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for 
each day conducted (monitoring period);
     Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;
     Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile 
types, average driving times, etc.;
     Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind 
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
     Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea 
state, tide state);
     For each marine mammal sighting:
    [cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
    [cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity;
    [cir] Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine 
mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the 
Level B zone
     Description of implementation of mitigation measures 
within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);
     Other human activity in the area within each monitoring 
period
     A summary of the following:
    [cir] Total number of individuals of each species detected within 
the Level B Zone, and estimated as taken if correction factor 
appropriate.
    [cir] Total number of individuals of each species detected within 
the Level A Zone and the average amount of time that they remained in 
that zone.
    [cir] Daily average number of individuals of each species 
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the Level B 
Zone, and estimated as taken, if appropriate.

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

[[Page 22030]]

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).
    As stated in the proposed mitigation section, shutdown zones, 
greater than Level A harassment zones, will be implemented. Level A 
take is only authorized as a precautionary measure for two species 
(harbor seals and harbor porpoises) in case PSOs are unable to detect 
them within their larger shutdown zones while impact piling 48-inch 
steel piles. Exposures to elevated sound levels produced during pile 
driving activities may cause behavioral responses by an animal, but 
they are expected to be mild and temporary. Effects on individuals that 
are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the 
literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will 
likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, 
increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were 
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, 
individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be 
temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even 
this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with 
impact pile driving. These reactions and behavioral changes are 
expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease.
    To minimize noise during vibratory and impact pile driving, KDC 
will use pile caps (pile softening material). Much of the noise 
generated during pile installation comes from contact between the pile 
being driven and the steel template used to hold the pile in place. The 
contractor will use high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or ultra-high-
molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMW) softening material on all 
templates to eliminate steel on steel noise generation.
    During all impact driving, implementation of soft start procedures 
and monitoring of established shutdown zones will be required, 
significantly reducing any possibility of injury. Given sufficient 
notice through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals 
are expected to move away from an irritating sound source prior to it 
becoming potentially injurious. In addition, PSOs will be stationed 
within the action area whenever pile driving and drilling operations 
are underway. Depending on the activity, KDC will employ the use of two 
to four PSOs to ensure all monitoring and shutdown zones are properly 
observed.
    Although the expansion of Berth IV's facilities would have some 
permanent removal of habitat available to marine mammals, the area lost 
would negligible. Most of the project footprint would be within 
previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing Berth IV structures and 
within an active marine commercial and industrial area. There are no 
known pinniped haul outs near the action area.
    In addition, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to 
be minor and temporary. Overall, the area impacted by the project is 
very small compared to the available habitat around Ketchikan. The most 
likely impact to prey will be temporary behavioral avoidance of the 
immediate area. During pile driving and drilling, it is expected that 
fish and marine mammals would temporarily move to nearby locations and 
return to the area following cessation of in-water construction 
activities. Therefore, indirect effects on marine mammal prey during 
the construction are not expected to be substantial.
    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;
     Minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat;
     The action area is located in an industrial and commercial 
marina;
     The absence of any rookeries, or known areas or features 
of special significance for foraging or reproduction in the project 
area;
     Anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at 
worst, temporary modifications in behavior; and
     The anticipated efficacy of the required mitigation 
measures (i.e. shutdown zones and pile caps) in reducing the effects of 
the specified activity.
    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, other qualitative factors may 
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of 
the activities.
    Take of eight of the ten marine mammal stocks authorized for take 
is less than three percent of the stock abundance. For northern 
resident and west coast transient killer whales, we acknowledge that 
15.33 percent and 16.46 percent of the stocks are proposed to be taken 
by Level B harassment, respectively. However, since three stocks of 
killer whales could occur in the action area, the 40 total killer whale 
takes are likely split among the three stocks. Nonetheless, since NMFS 
does not have a good way to predict exactly how take will be split, 
NMFS looked at the most conservative scenario, which is that all 40 
takes could potentially occur to each of the three stocks. This is a 
highly unlikely scenario to occur and the percentages of each stock 
taken are predicted to be significantly lower than values presented in 
Table 8 for killer whales.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size 
of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or 
stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability 
of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

[[Page 22031]]

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the Alaska Regional Office 
(AKRO) whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or 
threatened species.
    NMFS is proposing to authorize take of Mexico DPS humpback whales, 
which are listed under the ESA. The Permit and Conservation Division 
has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the Alaska 
Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the 
ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the 
proposed issuance of the authorization.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to KDC for conducting pile driving, pile removal, and 
drilling activities for the Ketchikan Berth IV Expansion Project in 
Ketchikan, Alaska from October 2018 to January of 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).
    1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for a 
period of one year from the date of issuance.
    2. This IHA is valid only for impact pile driving, vibratory pile 
driving, vibratory pile removal, and drilling activities associated 
with the construction of the Ketchikan Berth IV Expansion Project in 
Ketchikan, Alaska.
    3. General Conditions
    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of KDC, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA;
    (b) The species authorized for taking are the minke whale 
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), 
killer whale (Orcinus orca), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), 
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 
jubatus), Pacific White-Sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and 
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina);
    (c) The taking, by Level B harassment and small numbers of Level A 
harassment, is limited to the species listed in condition 3(b). See 
Table 1 (attached) for numbers of take authorized;
    (d) The taking by 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;
    (e) KDC shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors 
and crews and marine the mammal monitoring team prior to the start of 
all pile driving, pile removal, and drilling, and when new personnel 
join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication 
procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational 
procedures;
    (f) Pile driving and drilling activities authorized under this IHA 
may only occur during daylight hours.
    4. Mitigation Measures
    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the 
following mitigation measures:
    (a) For all pile driving, drilling, and in-water heavy machinery 
work, KDC shall implement a shutdown zone around the pile or work zone. 
If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such 
operations shall cease. See Table 2 (attached) for minimum radial 
distances required for shutdown zones;
    (b) After a shutdown occurs, impact pile driving, vibratory piling 
driving/removal, and/or drilling can only begin after the animal is 
observed leaving the shutdown zone or has not been observed for 15 
minutes;
    (c) KDC shall use a softening material (e.g., high-density 
polyethylene (HDPE) or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMW)) 
on all templates to eliminate steel on steel noise generation.
    (d) KDC will use a soft-start procedure for impact pile driving. 
During a soft start, KDC will be required to provide an initial set of 
three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by 
a one minute waiting period, then two subsequent 3-strike sets. This 
soft-start will be applied prior to beginning pile driving activities 
each day or when impact pile driving hammers have been idle for more 
than 30 minutes.
    (e) KDC will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer until a 
desired depth is achieved or to refusal prior to using an impact 
hammer.
    (f) KDC shall establish monitoring locations as described below.
    5. Monitoring
    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine 
mammal monitoring during all pile driving/removal and drilling 
activities. Monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance 
with the Monitoring Plan as described below.
    (a) KDC shall monitor the Level B harassment zones (monitoring 
zones) and shutdown zones shown below in Tables 2 and 3 during all pile 
driving/removal and drilling activities
    (b) If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' 
ability to make observations within the marine mammal shutdown zone, 
pile installation/removal and drilling shall cease. Pile driving and/or 
drilling shall not be initiated or continue until the entire largest 
shutdown zone for the activity is visible.
    (c) Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or 
whenever a break in pile driving/removal and/or drilling of 30 minutes 
or longer occurs, the PSOs shall observe the shutdown and monitoring 
zones for a period of 30 minutes before construction activities can 
begin.
    (d) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified PSOs, with minimum 
qualifications as described previously in the Monitoring and Reporting 
section of the proposed Federal Notice. PSO requirements include:
    (i) Two to Four observers shall be on site to actively observe the 
shutdown and disturbance zones during all pile driving, removal, and 
drilling;
    (1) Two land-based PSOs will monitor during all impact pile 
driving, vibratory removal, and drilling activities.
    (2) Four land-based PSOs will monitor during vibratory pile driving 
of 36-inch and 48-inch diameter piles.
    (ii) Observers shall use their naked eye with the aid of 
binoculars, and/or a spotting scope during all pile driving and 
extraction activities;
    (iii) Monitoring location(s) will include the following 
characteristics:
    (1) One PSO will be stationed at Berth IV and will be able to view 
across Tongass Narrows south and west to Gravina Island.
    (2) A second and third PSOs will be located in increments along the 
road systems at locations that provide the best vantage points for 
viewing Tongass Narrows west and east of Berth IV. These locations will 
vary depending on type of pile driving.
    (3) The fourth PSO will be located on the road system near Mountain 
Point and will be able to view Tongass Narrows to the northwest and 
Revillagigedo Channel to the southeast.

[[Page 22032]]

    (4) An unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone and 
as much of the Level B harassment zone as possible for pile driving/
removal and/or drilling;
    (e) Marine mammal location shall be determined using a rangefinder 
and a GPS or compass;
    (f) Post-construction monitoring shall be conducted for 30 minutes 
beyond the cessation of piling and drilling activities at end of day.
    6. Reporting
    The holder of this Authorization is required to: (a) Submit a draft 
report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar 
days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring. This report shall 
detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during 
monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have 
been harassed, including the total number extrapolated from observed 
animals across the entirety of relevant monitoring zones A final report 
shall be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution 
of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the 
following:
    (i) Date and time a monitored activity begins or ends;
    (ii) Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
    (iii) Record of implementation of shutdowns, including the distance 
of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued 
and resulting behavior of the animal, if any;
    (iv) Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types, 
average driving times, etc.;
    (v) Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
    (vi) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
    (vii) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
    (viii) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns,
    (ix) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and 
distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
    (x) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
    (xi) Other human activity in the area.
    (b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
    (i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, 
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, 
KDC shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (301-427-8401), NMFS, and 
the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator (907-271-1332), NMFS. The 
report must include the following information:
    1. Time and date of the incident;
    2. Description of the incident;
    3. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound 
source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
    5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    6. Fate of the animal(s); and
    7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with KDC to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. KDC may not resume 
their activities until notified by NMFS;
    (i) In the event that KDC 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), KDC shall immediately report 
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS;
    (ii) 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 KDC to determine 
whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the 
activities are appropriate;
    (iii) In the event that KDC 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), KDC shall report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. KDC 
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS;
    7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if 
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible 
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

                                  Table 1--Authorized Take Numbers, by Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species                                   Stock                   Level A         Level B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale................................  Central North Pacific...........               0              24
Minke Whale...................................  Alaska..........................               0               3
Killer Whale..................................  Alaska Resident.................  ..............              40
                                                Northern Resident...............               0              40
                                                West Coast Transient............  ..............              40
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin...................  North Pacific...................               0              92
Dall's Porpoise...............................  Alaska..........................               0              60
Harbor Porpoise...............................  Southeast Alaska................               5              20
Harbor Seal...................................  Clarence Strait.................               6             120
Steller Sea Lion..............................  Eastern U.S.....................               0             200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22033]]


                                             Table 2--Shutdown Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Shutdown zones (meters)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       High-
                                   Low-frequency   Mid-frequency     frequency
             Source                  cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans
                                     (humpback    (killer whale,      (dall's     Phocid (harbor   Otariid (sea
                                   whale, minke    Pacific-white     porpoise,         seal)           lion)
                                      whale)      sided dolphin)      harbor
                                                                     porpoise)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       In-Water Construction Activities *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Water Heavy Construction                   10              10              10              10              10
 (i.e., Barge movements, pile
 positioning, deadpulling, and
 sound attenuation).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Vibratory Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel removal (2 piles)               25              25              25              25              25
 (~1 hour on 1 day).............
30-inch steel removal 6 piles)                25              25              25              25              25
 (~1 hour per day on 2 days)....
36-inch steel removal (4 piles)               25              25              50              25              25
 (~1 hour on 1 day).............
30-inch steel temporary                       25              25              25              25              25
 installation (16 piles) (~2
 hours per day on 4 days).......
30-inch steel permanent                       25              25              25              25              25
 installation (1 pile) (~2 hours
 on 1 day)......................
48-inch steel permanent                       50              25              50              25              25
 installation (17 piles) (~2
 hours per day on 9 days).......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Impact Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-inch steel permanent                      240              25             290             130              25
 installation (17 piles) (~15
 minutes per day on 6 days).....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Socketing Pile Installation (Drilling)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel permanent                       50              25              50              25              25
 installation (1 pile) (3 hours
 per day on 1 day)..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table 3--Monitoring Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Level B zone
                 Source                    Level B zones      (square
                                             (meters)       kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Vibratory Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel removal (2 piles) (~1 hour           6,215             5.9
 on 1 day 3)............................
30-inch steel removal (6 piles) (~1 hour           6,215             5.9
 per day on 2 days).....................
36-inch steel removal (4 piles) (~1 hour          13,755            10.3
 on 1 day)..............................
30-inch steel temporary installation (16           6,215             5.9
 piles) (~2 hours per day on 4 days)....
30-inch steel permanent installation (1            6,215             5.9
 pile) (~2 hours on 1 day)..............
48-inch steel permanent installation (17          13,755            10.3
 piles) (~2 hours per day on 9 days)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Impact Pile Driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-inch steel (17 piles) (~15 minutes              3,745             4.9
 per day on 6 days).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Socketing Pile Installation (Drilling)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel (1 pile) (~3 hours on 1             13,755            10.3
 day)...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 pile 
driving/removal and drilling activities. 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

[[Page 22034]]

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; and
    (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.

    Dated: May 7, 2018.
Elaine T. Saiz,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10017 Filed 5-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P