[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72154-72184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28102]



[[Page 72153]]

Vol. 84

Monday,

No. 249

December 30, 2019

Part II





 Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking 
Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Port of Alaska's 
Petroleum and Cement Terminal, Anchorage, Alaska; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / 
Notices  

[[Page 72154]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XR027]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Port of 
Alaska's Petroleum and Cement Terminal, Anchorage, Alaska

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Port of Alaska (POA) for 
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving 
associated with the construction of a new Petroleum and Cement Terminal 
(PCT) in Knik Arm, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue two 
successive incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) to incidentally 
take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also 
requesting comments on possible one-year renewals that could be issued 
under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as 
described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. 
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 January 
29, 2020.

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/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. 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 incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review. Under the MMPA, ``take'' is defined as meaning to harass, 
hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 
any marine mammal.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. The definitions 
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the 
relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    Accordingly, NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 
consider the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of the 
proposed IHA. NMFS' EA will be made available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. 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 November 28, 2018, NMFS received a request from the POA for an 
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving associated with 
the construction of the PCT. On June 19, 2019, the POA submitted a 
subsequent, after request realizing the project would take two 
construction seasons (April-November) to complete. Because of this 
modified construction schedule, the POA submitted a new application on 
July 19, 2019 and a revised application on August 9, 2019. Although 
NMFS disagreed with some of the analysis in the application (as 
described later in this document), we deemed it adequate and complete 
on August 28, 2019, because it contained all the information necessary 
for us to conduct our MMPA analysis. The POA submitted a subsequent 
revised application on October 15, 2019, which is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. The POA's request is for take of small 
numbers of six species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment. Four 
of the species could also be taken by Level A harassment. Neither the 
POA nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this 
activity; therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    NMFS previously issued IHAs and Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to 
the POA for pile driving (73 FR 41318, July 18, 2008; 74 FR 35136, July 
20, 2009; and 81 FR 15048; March 21, 2016). The POA complied with all 
the requirements

[[Page 72155]]

(e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of all previous 
incidental take authorizations and did not exceed authorized take. 
Information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the 
Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat 
and Estimated Take sections.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The POA proposes to construct a new PCT comprised of a pile-
supported structure located along the southernmost shoreline of the POA 
(see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 in the POA's IHA application), as part 
of its Port of Alaska Modernization Project (PAMP). In general, the 
PAMP will include construction of new pile-supported wharves and 
trestles south and west of the existing terminals, with a planned 
design life of 75 years. The proposed project, the PCT project, is one 
component of the PAMP.
    The PCT project will replace the existing Petroleum Oil Lubricants 
Terminal which is currently the only bulk cement-handling facility in 
Alaska and is the primary terminal for receipt of refined petroleum 
products. The PCT Project will involve new construction of a loading 
platform, access trestle, and dolphins; and installation of utilities 
(electricity, water, and communication), petroleum, and cement lines 
linking the terminal and shore. Ships mooring to the PCT will utilize 
both breasting dolphins and mooring dolphins. The PCT will be designed 
to satisfy project-specific seismic performance criteria, allowing the 
terminal to be quickly restored to service following a major seismic 
event such as the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that struck Anchorage on 
November 30, 2018.
    The POA will install three breasting dolphins and six mooring 
dolphins as well as a new loading platform and catwalks. In addition to 
these permanent structures, temporary access trestles will be installed 
and subsequently removed. Pile installation will occur in water depths 
that range from a few feet or dry conditions nearest the shore to 
approximately 80 feet at the outer face of the loading platform, 
depending on tidal stage. Various work boats and barges will be 
utilized to support construction. Work will be completed over two 
construction seasons (April through November): Phase 1 will occur in 
2020 and Phase 2 will occur in 2021.

Dates and Duration

    POA anticipates two construction seasons (April-November) will be 
required to complete the PCT terminal. The POA has requested two IHAs 
to cover this work. These IHAs correspond with Phase 1 and Phase 2. The 
POA anticipates 359 hours of pile driving and removal over 127 days in 
Phase 1 and 229 hours of pile driving and removal over 75 days in Phase 
2. For each phase, construction mobilization is planned to commence the 
first week of April, with the potential to initiate pile installation 
activities by mid-April. Construction demobilization is planned to 
occur in November, with the expectation to remove the final temporary 
piles by the first week of November. Between April and November, piles 
will be installed and removed during daylight hours only.

Specific Geographic Region

    Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary that exchanges waters at its 
mouth with the Gulf of Alaska. The inlet is roughly 20,000 square 
kilometers (km\2\; 7,700 square miles [mi\2\]) in area, with 
approximately 1,350 linear kilometers (840 miles) of coastline (Rugh et 
al. 2000) and an average depth of approximately 100 meters (330 feet). 
Cook Inlet is generally divided into upper and lower regions by the 
East and West Forelands. Northern Cook Inlet bifurcates into Knik Arm 
to the north and Turnagain Arm to the east. The POA is located in the 
southeastern shoreline of Knik Arm (Figure 1).
    Knik Arm is generally considered to begin at Point Woronzof, 7.4 
kilometers (4.6 miles) southwest of the POA. From Point Woronzof, Knik 
Arm extends about 48 kilometers (30 miles) in a north-northeasterly 
direction to the mouths of the Matanuska and Knik rivers. At Cairn 
Point, just northeast of the POA, Knik Arm narrows to about 2.4 
kilometers (1.5 miles) before widening to as much as 8 kilometers (5 
miles) at the tidal flats northwest of Eagle Bay at the mouth of Eagle 
River, which are heavily utilized by Cook Inlet beluga whales (CIBWs). 
Approximately 60 percent of Knik Arm is exposed at mean lower low water 
(MLLW). The intertidal (tidally influenced) areas of Knik Arm, 
including those at the POA, are mudflats, both vegetated and 
unvegetated, which consist primarily of fine, silt-sized glacial flour.
    The POA's boundaries currently occupy an area of approximately 129 
acres. Other commercial and industrial activities related to secure 
maritime operations are located near the POA on Alaska Railroad 
Corporation (ARRC) property immediately south of the POA, on 
approximately 111 acres.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 72156]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30DE19.010

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    Located within the Municipality of Anchorage on Knik Arm in upper 
Cook Inlet (see Figure 1-1 in the POA's IHA application), the POA's 
existing infrastructure and support facilities were constructed largely 
in the 1960s. Port facilities are substantially past their design life, 
have degraded to levels of marginal safety, and are in many cases 
functionally obsolete, especially in

[[Page 72157]]

regard to seismic design criteria and condition.
    The purpose for the PCT Project is to replace the existing 
Petroleum Oil Lubricants Terminal (POL 1), the only bulk cement-
handling facility in Alaska and the primary terminal for receipt of 
refined petroleum products. POL 1, built in 1965, is more than 50 years 
old and consists of 160 wharf pilings that are uncoated, hollow-steel 
pile. The need for the PCT is based on the heavily deteriorated 
physical condition of POL 1. It suffers from severe corrosion of its 
foundation pilings to levels of marginal safety, as evidenced by 
currently imposed load restrictions. A 2014 pile condition assessment 
found severe corrosion throughout the facility, with pile wall losses 
exceeding 67 percent of their original thickness. It also sustained 
structural damage from a magnitude 7.1 earthquake that struck the area 
on November 30, 2018. Recent inspections in 2019 have led engineers to 
confirm that the stress imposed on the already-weakened structure by 
the November 30 quake caused some piling failure and predisposes the 
docks to additional failure during future earthquakes. The PCT has been 
designed to satisfy project-specific seismic performance criteria, 
allowing the terminal to be quickly restored to service following a 
major seismic event. POL 1 is functionally obsolete, has exceeded its 
useful life, and is unlikely to withstand another such earthquake.
    The PCT Project includes three major components: (1) A loading 
platform in Phase 1, (2) an access trestle (bridge-like structure 
allowing access to the loading platform) in Phase 1, and (3) breasting 
and mooring dolphins in Phase 2 (see Table 1-1). A temporary work 
trestle and temporary templates are required for constructing the 
permanent access trestle in Phase 1, and temporary templates are 
required for constructing the dolphins in Phase 2. During both Phase 1 
and Phase 2, temporary mooring dolphins will be required to accommodate 
construction barges and to moor construction vessels. Piles will be 
installed primarily with an impact hammer; however, some vibratory pile 
driving is also required. A bubble curtain will be deployed to reduce 
in-water sound levels during PCT construction for impact and vibratory 
hammer pile installation of 144-, 48-, 36-, and 24-inch plumb 
(vertical) piles and vibratory hammer removal of 36- and 24-inch plumb 
piles (all temporary and permanent piles). A bubble curtain will not be 
deployed during installation and removal of 24-inch battered (installed 
at an angle, not vertical) piles for the temporary construction work 
trestle and temporary dolphins due to the difficult geometric 
application.
    All Phase 1 work will occur under the first IHA, while Phase 2 work 
will occur under the second IHA. Pile sizes and quantities for 
permanent and temporary components for each phase are shown in Table 1-
1; estimates of the time required to install or remove piles for each 
phase are shown in Table 1-2.

                           Table 1-1--Summary of PCT Project Components and Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Total amount or
         Type of activity                  Location          Phase        Size and type            number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Permanent Components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent pile installation         In water.............          1  48-inch steel pipe    45 piles.
 (loading platform).                                                   (plumb).
Permanent pile installation         In water.............          1  48-inch steel pipe    26 piles.
 (access trestle).                                                     (plumb).
Permanent pile installation         In water.............          2  144-inch steel pipe   9 piles.
 (breasting and mooring dolphins).                                     (plumb).
Installation of concrete decking    Above water..........          1  Pre-cast panels.....  About 120 panels.
 on loading platform and main
 trestle.
Catwalks..........................  Above water..........          2  Prefabricated steel   9 units, totaling
                                                                       or aluminum trusses   990 feet.
                                                                       with open steel
                                                                       grating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Construction Support and Temporary Components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel support....................  In water.............      1 & 2  Barges and tugs.....  16 flat deck barges,
                                                                                             2 derrick barges,
                                                                                             and 3-4 tugs.
Temporary pile installation         In-water.............          1  24-inch steel pipe    26 piles
 (construction work trestle).                                      1   (plumb).             10 piles.
                                                                      24-inch steel pipe
                                                                       (battered).
Temporary pile installation         In-water.............          2  36-inch steel pipe    72 piles.
 (dolphin templates).                                                  (plumb).
Temporary pile installation         In-water.............          1  36-inch steel pipe    26 piles.
 (construction work trestle).                                          (plumb).
Temporary pile installation         In-water.............          1  24-inch steel pipe    36 piles.
 (access trestle templates).                                           (plumb).
Temporary mooring anchor systems..  In-water.............      1 & 2  20,000 pound          2 mooring systems.
                                                                       Danforth anchors.
Temporary derrick barge...........  In-water.............      1 & 2  36-inch steel pipe    4 piles.
                                                                       (plumb).
Temporary dolphins for mooring      In-water.............      1 & 2  24-inch steel pipe    3 dolphins, each
 construction vessels.                                                 (plumb).              with 1 plumb and 2
                                                                      4-inch steel pipe      battered piles (9
                                                                       (battered).           piles total).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Installation of Utility, Petroleum, and Cement Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation on access trestle and  Above water, on-dock.          1  Pipelines, various    300-600 linear feet
 loading platform.                                                     sizes and types.      each.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72158]]


                        Table 1-2--PCT Construction Pile Details and Estimated Effort Required for Pile Installation and Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average    Vibratory                        Estimated  Production
                                          Number of    Total     embedded     duration    Impact strikes per    total    rate piles        Days of
Pipe pile diameter       Feature \a\        piles    number of     depth      per pile           pile         number of    per day     installation and
                                                       piles      (feet)     (minutes)                          hours      (range)         removal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Phase 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-inch...........  Loading Platform....         45         71         100           30  2,300 (50 restrikes         73         1.5  30.
                                                                                          each for 4 piles).
                    Access Trestle......         26                    130               3,000 (50 restrikes         56       (1-3)  17.
                                                                                          each for 3 piles).
36-inch...........  Temporary                    26         30         115           75  50 restrikes for 10         33           3  9 installation.
                     Construction Work                                                    piles.                              (2-4)  9 removal.
                     Trestle.
                    Temporary Derrick             4                     40           75  NA.................          5           4  1 installation.
                     Barge.                                                                                                          1 removal.
24-inch...........  Temporary                    26         81         140           75  50 restrikes of 10          65           3  9 installation
                     Construction Work                                                    piles.                              (2-4)  9 removal.
                     Trestle.
                    Temporary                    10                    105           75  NA.................         25         1.6  6 installation.
                     Construction Work                                                                                        (1-2)  6 removal.
                     Trestle, Battered.
                    Temporary                    36                    105           75  NA.................         90           3  12 installation.
                     Construction Access                                                                                      (2-4)  12 removal.
                     Trestle Template.
                    Temporary Dolphins            3                     50           30  NA.................          3           3  1 installation.
                     for mooring                                                                                                     1 removal.
                     construction
                     vessels.
                    Temporary Dolphins            6                     50           30  NA.................          9           3  2 installation.
                     for mooring                                                                                                     2 removal.
                     construction
                     vessels, Battered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1 Construction Totals........................  182 piles  ..........  ...........  ...................        359  ..........  127.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Phase 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch...........  Temporary Dolphins            3          9          50           30  NA.................          3           3  1 installation.
                     for mooring                                                                                                     1 removal.
                     construction
                     vessels.
                    Temporary Dolphins            6                     50           30  NA.................          9           3  2 installation.
                     for mooring                                                                                                     2 removal.
                     construction
                     vessels, Battered.
36-inch...........  Temporary                    72         76         115           75  NA.................        180     3 (2-4)  24 installation.
                     Construction                                                                                                    24 removal.
                     Dolphin Template.
                    Temporary derrick             4                     40           75  NA.................          5           4  1 installation.
                     barge.                                                                                                          1 removal.
144-inch..........  Mooring Dolphin.....          6          9         140       45 ( 1  5,000 (1,500 first          21         0.5  13.
                                                                                  pile)   day, 3,500 second
                                                                                          day).
                    Breasting Dolphin...          3                    135                                           11     (0.3 or  6.
                                                                                                                               0.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2 Construction Totals........................   94 piles  ..........  ...........  ...................        229  ..........  75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated source levels for each pile type and installation 
method are provided in Table 2. These source levels are from the 
acoustic monitoring during the POA's 2016 Test Pile Program (TPP) (for 
48-in piles) and investigation of existing literature at other 
locations for non-48-in piles.

                                         Table 2--Estimated Pile Source Levels With and Without Bubble Curtains
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and pile size                                                      Sound level at 10 m                                       Data source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Unattenuated
                                                    Bubble curtain                  ..............
Vibratory                                               db rms
                                                7 dB reduction, dB rms              ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144-in............................                        178
                                                          171                       Caltrans 2015.
48-in.............................                        168
                                                          161                         Austin et al
                                                                                             2016.
36-in.............................                        166
                                                          159                           Navy 2015.
24-in.............................                        161
                                                          154                           Navy 2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                     Unattenuated                                   Bubble curtain
              Impact               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        dB rms          dB SEL          dB peak         dB rms          dB SEL          dB peak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144-in............................             209             198             220             202             191             213  Caltrans 2015.
48-in.............................             200             187             215             193             180             208  Austin et al. 2016.

[[Page 72159]]

 
36-in.............................             194             184             211             187             177             204  Navy 2015.
24-in.............................             193             181             210             186             174             203  Navy 2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phase 1--Loading Platform and Access Trestle Construction Description

    Phase 1 will take place during 2020 and will include construction 
of the loading platform and access trestle. Construction will be 
accomplished from two concurrent headings or directions; one marine-
side derrick barge with a crane/hammer will be used to construct the 
loading platform, and a land-side crawler crane/hammer will be used to 
construct the temporary and permanent access trestle from the shoreline 
out. The crawler crane will initially advance the temporary work 
trestle out from the shoreline with a top-down or leap-frog type 
construction method, and then the crawler crane will work off of the 
temporary work trestle to construct the permanent trestle all the way 
out to the loading platform.
    For the loading platform, which is supported with 48-inch piles, 
the contractor will first mobilize the marine-based derrick barge on 
the seaward side of the platform location and install four temporary 
mooring piles to stabilize the derrick barge during the construction 
season. Also, three temporary mooring dolphins will be constructed in 
the vicinity of the PCT to serve as mooring for construction vessels 
and barges containing construction materials, and will be removed at 
the end of the construction season. The derrick barge will host the 
crane and hammer used to install the permanent loading platform piles 
and decking. Each of the platform piles will be installed using an 
impact hammer with a bubble curtain applied. A vibratory hammer would 
only be used in the infrequent event that an obstruction were 
encountered while driving the pile that requires removal or 
repositioning of the pile with a vibratory hammer.
    Four of the permanent platform piles will be ``proofed'' to confirm 
their ability to withstand design loads. Proofing involves 
approximately 50 impact hammer restrikes over an approximate 10-minute 
period while instrumentation is attached to the pile during restrike to 
confirm design conformance. Pile cleanout activities, to prepare the 
interior of the hollow pile for partial concrete filling, will occur 
only in the top portion of the pile, but not below mudline. Any 
material adhered to the top inside of the pile will be removed to 
prepare for concrete installation, and a soffit form will be inserted 
into the hollow pile to prevent the closure pour concrete from reaching 
mudline. Formwork will be constructed around the top of the pile, out 
of the water, to support placement of a precast concrete cap on top of 
each pile. The closure pour, where concrete is poured into the pile 
above the soffit form, connects the pile to the precast pile caps, 
bonding the pile to the cap. Precast platform panels are then placed on 
the deck, and additional concrete will be poured on top of the panels 
to create the platform decking.
    For the access trestle, the permanent access trestle construction 
requires construction of a parallel temporary trestle, installed 
adjacent to the permanent trestle, from which to advance the temporary 
piles used for templates and installation of the permanent access 
trestle piles. While the permanent trestle requires 48-inch piles, the 
temporary trestle will be constructed using 24- and 36-inch piles.
    Initial construction of the temporary work trestle will be advanced 
first; then, as the work trestle advances water-ward and room is made 
available to accommodate construction equipment, work will commence on 
construction of the permanent access trestle coincidentally as the 
temporary work trestle is advanced water-ward toward the loading 
platform.
    Construction of the trestles will occur concurrently with 
construction of the loading platform. A crawler crane will be used to 
install piles for the temporary trestle, building seaward from the 
shore using a top-down or leap-frog construction method. The crawler 
crane will advance onto the temporary trestle to complete pile 
installation and decking for the temporary trestle. Once the first 
section of temporary trestle is constructed and the crawler crane is 
advanced, a second crawler crane will advance onto the deck of the 
temporary trestle and be used to install the first section of template 
and permanent piles for the permanent access trestle (see Pile Driving 
Scenarios, below).
    Three of the permanent trestle piles will be ``proofed'' to confirm 
their ability to withstand design loads. In addition, it is estimated 
that 10 each of the 24- and 36-inch temporary work trestle piles may 
need to be proofed to confirm load capacities for construction 
equipment. Template piles will stay in place until precast pile caps 
are placed on the permanent trestle piles following installation. The 
temporary trestle will stay in place for the entire construction 
season, and will be used as a work platform for decking installation on 
the permanent trestle. The temporary trestle decking and piles will be 
removed at the end of construction activities for Phase 1. Removal is 
expected to require the same amount of time as installation due to the 
strong pile setup and resistance conditions related to Knik Arm 
sediments.
    The permanent access trestle is comprised of eight bents (clusters) 
of three piles each and one bent of two piles at the abutment. The 
abutment bent (two piles) is located above mean high water on shore and 
will be installed in the dry. The next three bents are located in the 
intertidal zone and therefore may or may not be installed in water 
depending upon the tidal stage (i.e., if the tide is high, they may be 
in water, but if the tide is low, they will not be in water). The 
parallel temporary construction trestle will follow the same pattern. 
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all piles will be 
driven in water; however, if piles are driven in the dry during actual 
construction, takes of marine mammals will be assumed not to occur. 
Also, some of the permanent trestle piles may be started/partially 
driven with a vibratory hammer when in the dry at the abutment (two 
piles) and the first three bents (three piles each) in order to set the 
pile up for impact hammer installation; this condition also is not 
expected to generate takes. This is a unique situation at this location 
due to the highly variable tidal conditions and the need to provide 
initial pile support for impact hammer installation.
    To construct the loading platform and permanent access trestle, 
piles will be installed using an impact hammer to drive through the 
overburden sediment layer and into the bearing layer, to an average 
embedded depth of about 100 feet (loading platform piles) and 130 feet 
(access trestle piles) below the substrate. Installation and removal of 
all temporary piles, including derrick barge mooring piles, mooring 
dolphin piles for mooring construction vessels,

[[Page 72160]]

temporary access trestle piles, and templates for installation of the 
permanent access trestle piles, will use vibratory hammer methods. 
Limited vibratory hammer application may be required for loading 
platform and permanent trestle piles due to safety reasons, 
constructability, or if a pile encounters an obstruction.

Phase 2--Mooring and Breasting Dolphins Construction Description

    Phase 2 will occur in 2021 and will include construction of the 
mooring and breasting dolphins. Construction will be accomplished from 
one marine-based derrick barge with a crane/hammer work station. 
Similar to Phase 1, the contractor will initially install four 
temporary mooring piles to stabilize the derrick barge during the 
construction season. Also, three temporary mooring dolphins will be 
constructed in the vicinity of the PCT to serve as mooring for 
construction vessels and barges containing construction materials, and 
will be removed at the end of the construction season. The derrick 
barge will host the crane and hammer used to install the mooring and 
breasting dolphins. Temporary template piles will then be installed to 
anchor the template that will guide the installation of the permanent 
dolphin piles at each of the dolphin locations. Template piles will be 
installed approximately 115 feet into the substrate. Temporary template 
piles will be driven in a grid formation surrounding the location of 
each dolphin pile, with a steel framework bolted to the temporary piles 
to guide dolphin pile installation. The framework includes adjustable 
components and hydraulic guides that can be adjusted to maintain 
correct positioning of the dolphins once they are in place. All 
template piles will be aligned plumb (vertically) and installed and 
removed using a vibratory hammer due to accuracy requirements for 
setting the template. All plumb piles will employ a bubble curtain 
during all pile-driving activity.
    Ships mooring to the PCT will utilize both breasting dolphins and 
mooring dolphins. To meet required structural demands, monopile 
dolphins are planned for both the breasting and mooring dolphins. 
Breasting dolphins are designed to assist in the berthing of vessels by 
absorbing some of the lateral load during vessel impact. Breasting 
dolphins also protect the loading platform from impacts by vessels. 
Mooring dolphins, as their name implies, are used for mooring only and 
provide a place for a vessel to be secured by lines (ropes). Use of 
mooring dolphins helps control transverse and longitudinal movements of 
berthed vessels.
    In total, nine 144-in mooring and breasting dolphins will be 
installed at the PCT. Six mooring dolphins will be constructed parallel 
to and landward of the loading platform face and three breasting 
dolphins will be installed in alignment with the loading platform 
(Figure 1-2 in the POA's IHA application). These dolphins will provide 
for secure ship docking at the terminal. Each mooring and breasting 
dolphin will be comprised of a single round 144-inch steel pipe pile or 
monopile, driven to an average embedded depth of about 140 feet below 
the substrate.
    Following temporary pile installation with a vibratory hammer of 
the dolphin template, held in place with 36-inch piles, the crane will 
loft the first permanent pile length (approximately 100 feet) and ready 
it for lowering through the template framework. The crane will have a 
boom holding the top of the pile as well as a spotter arm lower on the 
pile to steady the pile for positioning. The pile will then be lowered 
through the template and readied for pile driving. Impact pile driving 
will be used to advance the pile to a prescribed depth, at which point 
pile-driving activity will stop to allow field splicing of the second 
pile length. Decking will be added to the temporary pile template 
framework to accommodate welders; no pile driving will be conducted 
during the welding and testing of the two lengths of pile, as the crane 
will be holding the second pile length in place. Once the first and 
second lengths of pile are spliced, pile driving will be reinitiated 
until the tip is at the prescribed depth. Limited vibratory hammer 
application may be required on the mooring or breasting dolphin piles 
for safety reasons or if a pile encounters an obstruction.
    Following monopile installation, the superstructure will be 
installed atop the monopile. A precast concrete mooring cap will be 
added to the monopile. The caps will be welded to the piles by an 
embedded steel ring in the precast cap. This activity will not require 
in-water work or hammer activity. The three breasting dolphins will 
have fenders installed, which will be attached to the mooring cap and 
will not require in-water or hammer work.
    Once the first and second lengths of pile, ring and mooring cap, 
and fender, if applicable, are assembled at the first location, the 
temporary pile template will be removed using a vibratory hammer. The 
barge will be repositioned to the next location, and the work activity 
will commence as described above.
    One crane will be used for installation of dolphin piles and 
associated temporary template piles; multiple hammers will not be 
employed simultaneously. Templates will be re-used at each dolphin 
location. The crane will alternate between installing template piles, 
driving dolphin piles, removing template piles, and out-of-water work 
such as placement of decking, catwalks, and utility racks along the 
platform and trestle. All terminal utility work is out of the water, 
and includes installation of pipe racks and utilities along the 
platform and trestle.

Phases 1 and 2--Temporary Mooring Dolphins

    Three temporary mooring dolphins will be installed near the PCT 
during Phases 1 and 2. Working barges and construction vessels 
associated with the PCT Project will use the temporary mooring dolphins 
during PCT construction. Each temporary mooring dolphin will consist of 
one 24[hyphen]inch plumb pile and two 24[hyphen]inch battered piles 
installed with a vibratory hammer (nine piles total).

Pile-Driving Summary--Phases 1 and 2

    Pile installation will occur in water depths that range from a few 
feet or dry conditions (at low tide) nearest the shore to approximately 
24 meters (80 feet) at the outer face of the loading platform at high 
tide, depending on tidal stage (see Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4 in the 
POA's IHA application). Figure 1-3 in the POA's IHA application shows 
three test piles that were installed in 2016 and are located just 
water-ward of the face of the PCT loading platform (test piles were 
removed in 2019). The PCT will be constructed between these three test 
piles and the shore; for illustrative purposes, the distance from the 
water-ward edge of the PCT loading platform (general location of test 
piles) is approximately 30 meters from mean lower low water and 115 
meters from mean higher high water.
    The pile-driving construction season for Phase 1 is scheduled to 
commence April 15, 2020, and end the first week of November 2020 
(November 7 for purposes of this analysis), with decommissioning 
occurring during the remainder of November. Decommissioning will not 
require in-water pile driving. Construction days when piles are not 
being installed or removed will be devoted to other work such as 
welding or deck work. The POA is working with their contractor to 
schedule deck work and other non-pile-

[[Page 72161]]

driving work to the maximum extent practicable during the August/
September timeframe when beluga whale abundance is higher in Knik Arm. 
Similarly, the pile driving construction season for Phase 2 is planned 
to commence in May 2021 and end in early November 2021. The estimated 
duration for installation and removal of PCT permanent and temporary 
piles is shown in Table 1-2.

Pile-Driving Scenarios

    During Phase 1, the POA expects to utilize three hammers on the job 
site to expedite construction, including an impact hammer for loading 
platform construction and an impact hammer and a vibratory hammer for 
permanent and temporary work trestle construction. In order to mitigate 
potential impacts to beluga whales and attempt to maximize pile 
installation activities during the lower density months of occurrence 
(May-July), the contractor plans to add the third crane with a 
vibratory hammer to the equipment work mix in order to accelerate 
construction of the temporary and permanent trestles. This could mean 
that one vibratory and two impact hammers may be operating at the same 
time along the trestles for brief periods of time. Use of these hammers 
could also be coincidental with use of the impact hammer for 
installation of the platform piles. It is not anticipated that two 
vibratory hammers will be operating at the same time. Section 6.3.2.3 
of the IHA application further details these conditions.
    Given the proximity of the platform and trestle, hammers could work 
very close to each other or as far as 100 meters away from each other. 
The most likely combinations of piles that could be installed within a 
day include (1) vibratory hammer installation of 24-inch temporary 
piles and impact hammer installation of 48-inch permanent trestle or 
loading platform piles, and (2) vibratory hammer installation of 36-
inch temporary piles and impact hammer installation of 48-inch 
permanent trestle or loading platform piles.
    Since only one crane will be operational during Phase 2, there will 
be no additional pile-driving activity during the impact installation 
of either the 36-inch temporary template piles or 144-inch monopiles. 
When using two hammers, one must consider the accumulated energy, and 
there are fundamental approaches for adjusting source levels to account 
for the aforementioned scenarios. While two impact hammers could work 
at the same time, it is unlikely that the hammers would be dropping at 
the exact same time; therefore, two impact hammers would not 
necessitate additional acoustic analysis.

Auxiliary Non-Pile-Driving Activities

    Other activities necessary to construct the PCT involve the 
installation of temporary mooring anchor systems, installation of 
utility lines and pipelines, and use of cranes, tugs, and floating 
barges. These activities are described in detail in the POA's IHA 
application. The National Marine Fisheries Service has evaluated these 
activities for the potential to harass marine mammals. Installation of 
the mooring anchor systems would not elevate noise levels in Knik Arm; 
therefore, marine mammal harassment is not a likely outcome. Utility, 
petroleum, and cement lines will extend between the PCT loading 
platform and the shore, and will connect with existing onshore 
infrastructure. The installed utility lines and pipelines will be 
supported by the access trestle and loading platform above marine 
waters. No pile installation or removal is associated with these 
auxiliary activities; therefore, no impacts on the aquatic environment, 
including elevated in-water noise, are anticipated from the 
installation of utility lines and pipelines.
    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    There are six species of marine mammals that may be found in upper 
Cook Inlet during the proposed pile driving activities. Sections 3 and 
4 of the POA's 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 (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and 
more general information about these species (e.g., physical and 
behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). Additional information on beluga 
whales may be found in NMFS' 2016 Recovery Plan for the Cook Inlet 
Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas), available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/recovery-plan-cook-inlet-beluga-whale-delphinapterus-leucas.
    Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
upper Cook Inlet and summarizes information related to the population 
or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and 
potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks and all values presented in 
Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and 
are available in the 2019 draft SARs (Muto et al., 2019).

[[Page 72162]]



                                    Table 3--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Occurring in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Western North Pacific..  E/D; Y              1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006)          3        2.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Cook Inlet.............  E/D; Y              327 (0.06, 311, 2016).       0.54          0
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Alaska Resident........  -/-; N              2,347 (N/A, 2,347,             24          1
                                                               Alaska Transient.......  -/-; N               2012).                       5.9          1
                                                                                                            587 (N/A, 587, 2012)..
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena...............  Gulf of Alaska.........  -/-; Y              31,046 (0.214, N/A,         Undet         72
                                                                                                             1998).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Western................  E/D; Y              54,267 (N/A, 54,267,          326        247
                                                                                                             2017).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  Cook Inlet/Shelikof....  -/-; N              28,411 (26,907, N/A,          807        807
                                                                                                             2018).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable because it has not been calculated.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
  with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    As described below, all six species (comprising six managed MMPA 
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.

Humpback Whale

    Currently, three populations of humpback whales are recognized in 
the North Pacific, migrating between their respective summer/fall 
feeding areas and winter/spring calving and mating areas (Baker et al. 
1998; Calambokidis et al. 1997). Although there is considerable 
distributional overlap in the humpback whale stocks that use Alaska, 
the whales seasonally found in Cook Inlet are probably of the Central 
North Pacific stock (Muto et al. 2017). The Central North Pacific stock 
winters in Hawaii and summers from British Columbia to the Aleutian 
Islands (Calambokidis et al. 1997), including Cook Inlet. The humpback 
whale ESA listing final rule (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016) 
established 14 Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) with different 
listing statuses. The Hawaii DPS is not listed as threatened or 
endangered under the ESA. NMFS is in the process of reviewing humpback 
whale stock structure under the MMPA in light of the 14 DPSs 
established under the ESA.
    Humpback whales are encountered regularly in lower Cook Inlet and 
occasionally in mid-Cook Inlet; however, sightings are rare in upper 
Cook Inlet. There have been few sightings of humpback whales near the 
project area. Humpback whales were not documented during POA 
construction or scientific monitoring from 2005 to 2011 or during 2016 
(Cornick and Pinney 2011; Cornick and Saxon-Kendall 2008, 2009; Cornick 
and Seagars 2016; Cornick et al. 2010, 2011; ICRC 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 
2012; Markowitz and McGuire 2007; Prevel-Ramos et al. 2006). Observers 
monitoring the Ship Creek Small Boat Launch from August 23 to September 
11, 2017 recorded two sightings, each of a single humpback whale, which 
was presumed to be the same individual. One other humpback whale 
sighting has been recorded for the immediate vicinity of the project 
area. This event involved a stranded whale that was sighted near a 
number of locations in upper Cook Inlet before washing ashore at 
Kincaid Park in 2017; it is unclear as to whether the humpback whale 
was alive or deceased upon entering Cook Inlet waters.
    Potential concerns include elevated levels of sound from 
anthropogenic sources (e.g., shipping, military sonars) but no specific 
habitat concerns have been identified for this stock. Other potential 
impacts include harmful algal blooms (Geraci et al. 1989), possible 
changes in prey distribution with climate change, entanglement in 
fishing gear, ship strikes due to increased vessel traffic (e.g., from 
increased shipping in higher latitudes and through the Bering Sea with 
changes in sea-ice coverage), and oil and gas activities. An 
intentional unauthorized take of a humpback whale by Alaska Natives in 
Toksook Bay was documented in 2016 (Muto et al., 2019); however, no 
subsistence use of humpback whales occurs in Cook Inlet.
    The overall trend for most humpback whale populations found in U.S. 
waters is positive and points toward recovery (81 FR 62259; September 
8, 2016), indicating that prey availability is not a major problem. 
However, a sharp decline in observed reproduction and encounter rates 
of humpback whales from the Central North Pacific stock between 2013 
and 2018 has been related to oceanographic anomalies and consequent 
impacts on prey resources (Cartwright et al. 2019), suggesting that 
humpback whales are vulnerable to major environmental changes.

Beluga Whale

    The CIBW stock is a small, geographically isolated population 
separated from other beluga populations

[[Page 72163]]

by the Alaska Peninsula. The population is genetically distinct from 
other Alaska populations, suggesting the peninsula is an effective 
barrier to genetic exchange (O'Corry-Crowe et al. 1997). The CIBW 
population is estimated to have declined from 1,300 animals in the 
1970s (Calkins 1989) to about 340 animals in 2014 (Shelden et al. 
2015). The precipitous decline documented in the mid-1990s was 
attributed to unsustainable subsistence practices by Alaska Native 
hunters (harvest of >50 whales per year) (Mahoney and Shelden 2000). In 
2006, a moratorium to cease hunting was agreed upon to protect the 
species.
    The Cook Inlet beluga stock remains within Cook Inlet throughout 
the year (Goetz et al. 2012a). NMFS designated two areas, consisting of 
7,809 km2 (3,016 mi2) of marine and estuarine environments considered 
essential for the species' survival and recovery as critical habitat. 
However, in recent years the range of the beluga whale has contracted 
to the upper reaches of Cook Inlet because of the decline in the 
population (Rugh et al. 2010). Area 1 of the CIBW critical habitat 
encompasses all marine waters of Cook Inlet north of a line connecting 
Point Possession (61.04[deg] N, 150.37[deg] W) and the mouth of Three 
Mile Creek (61.08.55[deg] N, 151.04.40[deg] W), including waters of the 
Susitna, Little Susitna, and Chickaloon Rivers below mean higher high 
water (MHHW). This area provides important habitat during ice-free 
months and is used intensively by Cook Inlet beluga between April and 
November (NMFS 2016a). More information on CIBW habitat can be found at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/critical-habitat-cook-inlet-beluga-whale.
    Since 1993, NMFS has conducted annual aerial surveys in June, July 
or August to document the distribution and abundance of beluga whales 
in Cook Inlet. The collective survey results show that beluga whales 
have been consistently found near or in river mouths along the northern 
shores of upper Cook Inlet (i.e., north of East and West Foreland). In 
particular, beluga whale groups are seen in the Susitna River Delta, 
Knik Arm, and along the shores of Chickaloon Bay. Small groups had also 
been recorded farther south in Kachemak Bay, Redoubt Bay (Big River), 
and Trading Bay (McArthurRiver) prior to 1996 but very rarely 
thereafter. Since the mid-1990s, most (96 to 100 percent) beluga whales 
in upper Cook Inlet have been concentrated in shallow areas near river 
mouths, no longer occurring in the central or southern portions of Cook 
Inlet (Hobbs et al. 2008). Based on these aerial surveys, the 
concentration of beluga whales in the northernmost portion of Cook 
Inlet appears to be consistent from June to October (Rugh et al. 2000, 
2004a, 2005, 2006, 2007). Research reports generated from the surveys 
can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/endangered-species-conservation/research-reports-and-publications-cook-inlet-beluga-whales.
    Though CIBWs can be found throughout the inlet at any time of year, 
they spend the ice-free months generally in the upper Cook Inlet, 
shifting into the middle and lower Inlet in winter (Hobbs et al. 2005). 
In 1999, one beluga whale was tagged with a satellite transmitter, and 
its movements were recorded from June through September of that year. 
Since 1999, 18 beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet have been captured and 
fitted with satellite tags to provide information on their movements 
during late summer, fall, winter, and spring. Using location data from 
satellite-tagged Cook Inlet belugas, Ezer et al. (2013) found most 
tagged whales were in the lower to middle inlet (70 to 100 percent of 
tagged whales) during January through March, near the Susitna River 
Delta from April to July (60 to 90 percent of tagged whales) and in the 
Knik and Turnagain Arms from August to December.
    More recently, the Marine Mammal Lab has conducted long-term 
passive acoustic monitoring demonstrating seasonal shifts in CIBW 
concentrations throughout Cook Inlet. Castellote et al. (2015) 
conducted long-term acoustic monitoring at 13 locations throughout Cook 
Inlet between 2008 and 2015: North Eagle Bay, Eagle River Mouth, South 
Eagle Bay, Six Mile, Point MacKenzie, Cairn Point, Fire Island, Little 
Susitna, Beluga River, Trading Bay, Kenai River, Tuxedni Bay, and Homer 
Spit; the former six stations being located within Knik Arm. In 
general, the observed seasonal distribution is in accordance with 
descriptions based on aerial surveys and satellite telemetry: Beluga 
detections are higher in the upper inlet during summer, peaking at 
Little Susitna, Beluga River, and Eagle Bay, followed by fewer 
detections at those locations during winter. Higher detections in 
winter at Trading Bay, Kenai River, and Tuxedni Bay suggest a broader 
beluga distribution in the lower inlet during winter.
    Beluga whales in Cook Inlet are believed to mostly calve between 
mid-May and mid-July, and concurrently breed between late spring and 
early summer (NMFS 2016a), primarily in upper Cook Inlet. The only 
known observed occurrence of calving occurred on July 20, 2015 in the 
Susitna Delta area (T. McGuire, pers. comm. March 27, 2017). The first 
neonates encountered during each field season from 2005 through 2015 
were always seen in the Susitna River Delta in July. The photo ID 
team's documentation of the dates of the first neonate of each year 
indicate that calving begins in mid-late July/early August, generally 
coinciding with the observed timing of annual maximum group size. 
Probable mating behavior of belugas was observed in April and May of 
2014, in Trading Bay. Young beluga whales are nursed for two years and 
may continue to associate with their mothers for a considerable time 
thereafter (Colbeck et al. 2013).
    During the spring and summer, beluga whales are generally 
concentrated near the warmer waters of river mouths where prey 
availability is high and predator occurrence is low (Moore et al. 
2000). Goetz et al. (2012b) modeled habitat preferences using NMFS' 
1994-2008 June abundance survey data. In large areas, such as the 
Susitna Delta (Beluga to Little Susitna Rivers) and Knik Arm, there was 
a high probability that beluga whales were in larger group sizes. 
Beluga whale presence also increased closer to rivers with Chinook 
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) runs, such as the Susitna River. 
Movement has been correlated with the peak discharge of seven major 
rivers emptying into Cook Inlet. Boat-based surveys from 2005 to the 
present (McGuire and Stephens 2017), and initial results from passive 
acoustic monitoring across the entire inlet (Castellote et al. 2015) 
also support seasonal patterns observed with other methods. Based on 
long-term passive acoustic monitoring, seasonally, foraging behavior 
was more prevalent during summer, particularly at upper inlet rivers, 
than during winter. Foraging index was highest at Little Susitna, with 
a peak in July[hyphen]August and a secondary peak in May, followed by 
Beluga River and then Eagle Bay; monthly variation in the foraging 
index indicates belugas shift their foraging behavior among these three 
locations from April through September.
    Despite protection from hunting, this stock continues to decline. 
The population was declining at the end of the period of unregulated 
harvest, with the relatively steep decline ending in 1999, coincident 
with harvest removals dropping from an estimated 42 in 1998 to just 0 
to 2 whales per year in 2000 to 2006 (and with no removals after 2006). 
From 1999 to 2016, the rate of decline of the population was estimated 
to be 0.4% (SE = 0.6%) per year, with

[[Page 72164]]

a 73% probability of a population decline. While from 2006 to 2016, the 
most recent 10-year period, the rate of decline was estimated to be 
0.5% per year, (with a 70% probability of a population decline) 
(Shelden et al. 2017). No human-caused mortality or serious injury of 
CIBWs has been recently documented. Other potential threats most likely 
to result in direct human-caused mortality or serious injury of this 
stock include ship strikes.
    Mortality related to live stranding events, where a beluga whale 
group strands as the tide recedes, has been regularly observed in upper 
Cook Inlet. Most whales involved in a live stranding event survive, 
although some associated deaths may not be observed if the whales die 
later from live-stranding-related injuries (Vos and Shelden 2005, 
Burek-Huntington et al. 2015). Between 2013 and 2017, there were 
reports of approximately 78 beluga whales involved in two known live 
stranding events, plus one suspected live stranding event with two 
associated deaths reported. In 2014, necropsy results from two whales 
found in Turnagain Arm suggested that a live stranding event 
contributed to their deaths as both had aspirated mud and water. No 
live stranding events were reported prior to the discovery of these 
dead whales, suggesting that not all live stranding events are 
observed. Most live strandings occur in Knik Arm and Turnagain Arm, 
which are shallow and have big tides. Another source of beluga whale 
mortality in Cook Inlet is predation by transient-type (mammal-eating) 
killer whales.
    In its Recovery Plan (NMFS, 2016), NMFS identified several threats 
to CIBWs. Potential threats include: (1) High concern: Catastrophic 
events (e.g., natural disasters, spills, mass strandings), cumulative 
effects of multiple stressors, and noise; (2) medium concern: Disease 
agents (e.g., pathogens, parasites, and harmful algal blooms), habitat 
loss or degradation, reduction in prey, and unauthorized take; and (3) 
low concern: Pollution, predation, and subsistence harvest. The 
recovery plan did not treat climate change as a distinct threat but 
rather as a consideration in the threats of high and medium concern.

Killer Whale

    Two stocks of killer whales may be present in upper Cook Inlet: The 
Eastern North Pacific Alaska Residents and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
Islands, and Bering Sea Transients. Both ecotypes overlap in the same 
geographic area; however, they maintain social and reproductive 
isolation and feed on different prey species. During aerial surveys 
conducted between 1993 and 2004, killer whales were observed on only 
three flights, all in the Kachemak and English Bay area (Rugh et al. 
2005). Anecdotal reports of killer whales feeding on belugas in upper 
Cook Inlet began increasing in the 1990s; several of these sightings 
and strandings report killer whale predation on beluga Whales.
    No killer whales were spotted in the vicinity of the POA during 
surveys by Funk et al. (2005), Ireland et al. (2005), or Brueggeman et 
al. (2007, 2008a, 2008b). No killer whale sightings were documented 
during POA construction or scientific monitoring from 2005 to 2011 or 
during the 2016 TPP. Very few killer whales, if any, are expected to 
approach or be near the project area during construction of the PCT.
    There are no reports of a subsistence harvest of killer whales in 
Alaska. Based on currently available data, a minimum estimate of the 
mean annual mortality and serious injury rate for both the Alaska 
Residents and transient stocks due to U.S. commercial fisheries is less 
than 10% of the PBR and, therefore, is considered to be insignificant 
and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. Therefore, 
neither stock is classified as a strategic stock.

Harbor Porpoise

    Harbor porpoises primarily frequent the coastal waters of the Gulf 
of Alaska and Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2000, 2008), typically 
occurring in waters less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). Harbor 
porpoise prefer nearshore areas, bays, tidal areas, and river mouths 
(Dahlheim et al. 2000, Hobbs and Waite 2010). In Alaskan waters, NMFS 
has designated three stocks of harbor porpoises for management 
purposes: Southeast Alaska, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea Stocks (Muto 
et al. 2017). Porpoises found in Cook Inlet belong to the Gulf of 
Alaska Stock, which is distributed from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass.
    Although harbor porpoise have been frequently observed during 
aerial surveys in Cook Inlet (Shelden et al. 2014), most sightings are 
of single animals, and are concentrated at Chinitna and Tuxedni Bays on 
the west side of lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2005) and in the upper 
inlet. The occurrence of larger numbers of porpoise in the lower Cook 
Inlet may be driven by greater availability of preferred prey and 
possibly less competition with beluga whales, as belugas move into 
upper inlet waters to forage on Pacific salmon during the summer months 
(Shelden et al. 2014).
    There has been an increase in harbor porpoise sightings in upper 
Cook Inlet over the past two decades (Shelden et al. 2014). Small 
numbers of harbor porpoises have been consistently reported in upper 
Cook Inlet between April and October (Prevel-Ramos et al. 2008). Harbor 
porpoises have been observed within Knik Arm during monitoring efforts 
since 2005. During POA construction from 2005 through 2011 and in 2016, 
harbor porpoises were reported in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (Cornick and 
Saxon-Kendall 2008, 2009; Cornick and Seagars 2016; Cornick et al. 
2010, 2011; Markowitz and McGuire 2007; Prevel-Ramos et al. 2006; Table 
4-2). In 2009, a total of 20 harbor porpoises were observed during 
construction monitoring, with sightings in June, July, August, October, 
and November. Harbor porpoises were observed twice in 2010, once in 
July and again in August. In 2011, POA monitoring efforts documented 
harbor porpoises five times, with a total of six individuals, in 
August, October, and November at the POA (Cornick et al. 2011). During 
other monitoring efforts conducted in Knik Arm, there were four 
sightings of harbor porpoises in 2005 (Shelden et al. 2014), and a 
single harbor porpoise was observed within the vicinity of the POA in 
October 2007.
    Estimates of human-caused mortality and serious injury from 
stranding data and fisherman self-reports are underestimates because 
not all animals strand or are self-reported nor are all stranded 
animals found, reported, or have the cause of death determined. In 
addition, the trend of this stock is unknown given data is more than 
eight years old. Given their shallow water distribution, 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). 
Subsistence users have not reported any harvest from the Gulf of Alaska 
harbor porpoise stock since the early 1900s (Shelden et al. 2014).

Steller Sea Lion

    Steller sea lions inhabiting Cook Inlet belong to the western 
distinct population segment (WDPS), and this is the stock considered in 
this analysis. NMFS defines the Steller sea lion WDPS as all 
populations west of longitude 144[deg] W to the western end of the 
Aleutian Islands. The most recent comprehensive aerial photographic and 
land-based surveys of WDPS Steller sea

[[Page 72165]]

lions in Alaska were conducted during the 2014 and 2015 breeding 
seasons (Fritz et al. 2015). The WDPS of Steller sea lions is currently 
listed as endangered under the ESA (55 FR 49204, November 26, 1990) and 
designated as depleted under the MMPA. NMFS designated critical habitat 
on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). The critical habitat designation for 
the WDPS of Steller sea lions was determined to include a 37 km (20 nm) 
buffer around all major haul outs and rookeries, and associated 
terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic zones, plus three large offshore 
foraging areas, none of which occurs in the project area. Steller sea 
lions feed largely on walleye pollock, salmon, and arrowtooth flounder 
during the summer, and walleye pollock and Pacific cod during the 
winter (Sinclair and Zeppelin 2002). Except for salmon, none of these 
are found in abundance in upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth et al. 2007).
    Within Cook Inlet, Steller sea lions primarily inhabit lower Cook 
Inlet. However, they occasionally venture to upper Cook Inlet and Knik 
Arm. Steller sea lions have been observed near the POA in June 2009 
(ICRC 2009a) and in May 2016 (Cornick and Seagars 2016). During POA 
construction monitoring in June of 2009, a Steller sea lion was 
documented three times (within the same day) in Knik Arm and was 
believed to be the same individual (ICRC 2009a). In 2016, Steller sea 
lions were observed on two separate days. On May w, 2016, one 
individual was sighted. On May 25, 2016, there were five Steller sea 
lion sightings within a 50-minute period, and these sightings occurred 
in areas relatively close to one another suggesting they were likely 
the same animal (Cornick and Seagars 2016). Steller sea lions are 
likely attracted to the salmon runs; however, their presence is less 
common in upper Cook Inlet than lower Cook Inlet.
    The total estimated annual level of human-caused mortality and 
serious injury for Western U.S. Steller sea lions in 2012-2016 was 247 
sea lions: 35 in U.S. commercial fisheries, 1.2 in unknown (commercial, 
recreational, or subsistence) fisheries, 2 in marine debris, 5.5 due to 
other causes (arrow strike, entangled in hatchery net, illegal 
shooting, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) authorized research-
related), and 203 in the Alaska Native subsistence harvest. However, 
there are multiple nearshore commercial fisheries which are not 
observed; thus, there is likely to be unreported fishery-related 
mortality and serious injury of Steller sea lions.
    Several factors may have been important drivers of the decline of 
the stock. However, there is uncertainty about threats currently 
impeding their recovery, particularly in the Aleutian Islands. Many 
factors have been suggested as causes of the steep decline in abundance 
of western Steller sea lions observed in the 1980s, including 
competitive effects of fishing, environmental change, disease, 
contaminants, killer whale predation, incidental take, and illegal and 
legal shooting (Atkinson et al. 2008, NMFS 2008). A number of 
management actions have been implemented since 1990 to promote the 
recovery of the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions, including 3-
nmi no-entry zones around rookeries, prohibition of shooting at or near 
sea lions, and regulation of fisheries for sea lion prey species (e.g., 
walleye pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel) (Sinclair et al. 2013, 
Tollit et al. 2017).

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals belonging to the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait stock 
inhabit the coastal and estuarine waters of Cook Inlet and are observed 
in both upper and lower Cook Inlet throughout most of the year (Boveng 
et al. 2012; Shelden et al. 2013). Recent research on satellite-tagged 
harbor seals observed several movement patterns within Cook Inlet 
(Boveng et al. 2012). In the fall, a portion of the harbor seals 
appeared to move out of Cook Inlet and into Shelikof Strait, northern 
Kodiak Island, and coastal habitats of the Alaska Peninsula. The 
western coast of Cook Inlet had higher usage by harbor seals than 
eastern coast habitats, and seals captured in lower Cook Inlet 
generally exhibited site fidelity by remaining south of the Forelands 
in lower Cook Inlet after release (Boveng et al. 2012).
    The presence of harbor seals in upper Cook Inlet is seasonal. 
Harbor seals are commonly observed along the Susitna River and other 
tributaries within upper Cook Inlet during eulachon and salmon 
migrations (NMFS 2003). The major haulout sites for harbor seals are 
located in lower Cook Inlet with fewer sites in upper Cook Inlet 
(Montgomery et al. 2007). In the project area (Knik Amr), harbor seals 
tend to congregate near the mouth of Ship Creek (Cornick et al. 2011; 
Shelden et al. 2013), likely foraging on salmon and eulachon runs. 
Approximately 138 harbor seals were observed during previous POA 
monitoring with sightings ranging from 3 individuals in 2008 to 59 
individuals in 2011 (see Table 4-1 in POA's application).
    The most current population trend estimate of the Cook Inlet/
Shelikof Strait stock is approximately -111 seals per year, with a 
probability that the stock is decreasing of 0.609 (Muto et al., 2015). 
The estimated level of human-caused mortality and serious injury for 
this stock is 234 seals, of which 233 seals are taken for subsistence 
uses. Additional potential threats most likely to result in direct 
human-caused mortality or serious injury for all stocks of harbor seals 
in Alaska include unmonitored subsistence harvests, incidental takes in 
commercial fisheries, and illegal shooting. Disturbance by cruise 
vessels is an additional threat for harbor seal stocks that occur in 
glacial fjords (Jansen et al. 2010, 2015; Matthews et al. 2016). The 
average annual harvest of this stock of harbor seals between 2004 and 
2008 was 233 seals per year. The annual harvest in 2014 was 104 seals 
(Muto et al., 2019).
    In addition, sea otters (Enhydra lutris) may be found in Cook 
Inlet. However, sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and are not considered further in this document.

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 (2018) 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. Marine mammal hearing 
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 4.

[[Page 72166]]



                  Table 4--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                              [NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen   7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans           150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
 whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true    275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
 cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)     50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater)    60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 (sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
  composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
  species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
  hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
  composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    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 (2018) for a review of available information. 
Six marine mammal species (four cetacean and two pinniped (one otariid 
and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with 
the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the 
cetacean species that may be present, one is classified as a low-
frequency cetacean (i.e., all mysticete species), two are classified as 
mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and 
the sperm whale), and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean 
(i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section 
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the 
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment 
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on 
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
    Description of Sound Sources--The primary relevant stressor to 
marine mammals from the proposed activity is the introduction of noise 
into the aquatic environment; therefore, we focus our impact analysis 
on the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals. To better 
understand the potential impacts of exposure to pile driving noise, we 
describe sound source characteristics below. Specifically, we look at 
the following two ways to characterize sound: by its temporal (i.e., 
continuous or intermittent) and its pulse (i.e., impulsive or non-
impulsive) properties. Continuous sounds are those whose sound pressure 
level remains above that of the ambient sound, with negligibly small 
fluctuations in level (NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005), while intermittent 
sounds are defined as sounds with interrupted levels of low or no sound 
(NIOSH, 1998). Impulsive sounds, such as those generated by impact pile 
driving, are typically transient, brief (<1 sec), broadband, and 
consist of a high peak pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay 
(ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998). The majority of energy in pile impact pulses 
is at frequencies below 500 Hz. Impulsive sounds, by definition, are 
intermittent. Non-impulsive sounds, such as those generated by 
vibratory pile driving, can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or 
prolonged, and typically do not have a high peak sound pressure with 
rapid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998). 
Non-impulsive sounds can be intermittent or continuous. Similar to 
impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving generates low frequency 
sounds. Vibratory pile driving is considered a non-impulsive, 
continuous source. Discussion on the appropriate harassment threshold 
associated with these types of sources based on these characteristics 
can be found in the Estimated Take section.
    Potential Effects of the Specified Activity--In general, the 
effects of sounds from pile driving to marine mammals might result in 
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., 2004; 
Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The potential for and 
magnitude of these effects are dependent on several factors, including 
received characteristics (e.g., age, size, depth of the animal during 
exposure); the energy needed to drive the pile (usually related to pile 
size, depth driven, and substrate), the standoff distance between the 
pile and receiver; and the sound propagation properties of the 
environment.
    Impacts to marine mammals from pile driving activities are expected 
to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of 
effect is intrinsically related to the 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. 
Shallow environments are typically more structurally complex, which 
leads to rapid sound attenuation. In addition, substrates that are soft 
(e.g., sand) absorb or attenuate the sound more readily than hard 
substrates (e.g., rock) which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft 
porous substrates also likely require less time to drive the pile, and 
possibly less forceful equipment, which ultimately decrease the 
intensity of the acoustic source.
    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

[[Page 72167]]

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 POA's activities would result in such effects (see below for 
further discussion).
    NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as ``a change, 
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level'' (NMFS, 2016). The amount of 
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB (ANSI 1995, Yost 2007). 
A TS can be permanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS). As described in NMFS 
(2018), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the 
consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal 
pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual 
would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level 
to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to 
minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure (i.e., 
spectral content), the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the 
exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how 
animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., 
Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the 
source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral). When analyzing the 
auditory effects of noise exposure, it is often helpful to broadly 
categorize sound as either impulsive--noise with high peak sound 
pressure, short duration, fast rise-time, and broad frequency content--
or non-impulsive. When considering auditory effects, vibratory pile 
driving is considered a non-impulsive source while impact pile driving 
is treated as an impulsive source.
    Permanent Threshold Shift--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold 
shift approximates PTS onset (see NMFS 2018 for review).
    Temporary Threshold Shift--NMFS defines TTS as a temporary, 
reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Based on data from 
cetacean TTS measurements (see Finneran 2014 for a review), a TTS of 6 
dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any 
day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal 
hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000; Finneran 
et al., 2002).
    Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration 
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in 
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging 
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory 
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily 
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal 
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and 
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well 
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that 
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though 
likely not without cost.
    Schlundt et al. (2000) performed a study exposing five bottlenose 
dolphins and two belugas (same individuals as Finneran's studies) to 
intense 1 second tones at different frequencies. The resulting levels 
of fatiguing stimuli necessary to induce 6 dB or larger masked TTSs 
were generally between 192 and 201 dB re: 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa). 
Dolphins began to exhibit altered behavior at levels of 178-193 dB re: 
1[mu]Pa and above; belugas displayed altered behavior at 180-196 dB re: 
1 [mu]Pa and above. At the conclusion of the study, all thresholds were 
at baseline values.
    There are a limited number of studies investigating the potential 
for cetacean TTS from pile driving and only one has elicited a small 
amount of TTS in a single harbor porpoise individual (Kastelein et al., 
2015). However, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales have 
exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to pulsed sounds (Finneran 
et al., 2000, 2002, 2005). The animals tolerated high received levels 
of sound before exhibiting aversive behaviors. Experiments on a beluga 
whale showed that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received 
level of 207 kPa (30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228 dB p-p, 
resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, 
respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure 
level within four minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). 
Although the source level of pile driving from one hammer strike is 
expected to be lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, 
animals being exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes 
could receive more sound exposure in terms of SEL than from the single 
watergun impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s) in the 
aforementioned experiment (Finneran et al., 2002). Results of these 
studies suggest odontocetes are susceptible to TTS from pile driving, 
but that they seem to recover quickly from at least small amounts of 
TTS.
    Behavioral Harassment--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. Disturbance may result in 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. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, 
possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). 
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

[[Page 72168]]

(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). In 
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more 
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, 
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial 
sound than most cetaceans. 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 above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic 
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance 
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and 
Symonds 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 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 (Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, 
animals may cease sound production during production of aversive 
signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
(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

[[Page 72169]]

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).
    Specific to CIBWs, we have several years of marine mammal 
monitoring data demonstrating the behavioral responses to pile driving 
at the POA. Previous pile driving activities range from the 
installation and removal of sheet pile driving to installation of 48-in 
pipe piles with both vibratory and impact hammers. Kendell and Cornick 
(2016) provide a comprehensive overview of four years of scientific 
marine mammal monitoring conducted during the POA's Expansion Project. 
These were observations made independent of pile driving activities 
(i.e., not construction based PSOs). The authors investigated beluga 
whale behavior before and during pile driving activity at the POA. 
Sighting rates, mean sighting duration, behavior, mean group size, 
group composition, and group formation were compared between the two 
periods. A total of about 2,329 h of sampling effort was completed 
across 349 d from 2005 to 2009. Overall, 687 whales in 177 groups were 
documented during the 69 days that whales were sighted. A total of 353 
and 1,663 h of pile driving activity took place in 2008 and 2009, 
respectively. There was no relationship between monthly beluga whale 
sighting rates and monthly pile driving rates (r = 0.19, p = 0.37). 
Sighting rates before (n = 12; 0.06  0.01) and during (n = 
13; 0.01  0.03) pile driving activity were not 
significantly different. However, sighting duration of beluga whales 
decreased significantly during pile driving (39  6 min 
before and 18  3 min during). There were also significant 
differences in behavior before versus during pile driving. Beluga 
whales primarily traveled through the study area both before and during 
pile driving; however, traveling increased relative to other behaviors 
during pile driving activity. Suspected feeding decreased during pile 
driving although the sample

[[Page 72170]]

size was low as feeding was observed on only two occasions before pile 
driving and on zero occasions during pile driving. Documentation of 
milling began in 2008 and was observed on 21 occasions. No acute 
behavioral responses were documented. Mean group size decreased during 
pile driving; however, this difference was not statistically 
significant. There were significant differences in group composition 
before and during pile driving ship between monthly beluga whale 
sighting rates and monthly pile driving rates with more white (i.e., 
older) animals being present during pile driving.
    Acoustically, Kendall et al. (2013) only recorded echolocation 
clicks and no whistles or noisy vocalizations near construction 
activity at the POA. Beluga whales have been occasionally documented to 
forage around Ship Creek (south of the POA) but, during pile driving, 
may choose to move past the POA to other, potentially richer, feeding 
areas further into Knik Arm (e.g., Six Mile Creek, Eagle River, Eklutna 
River). These locations contain predictable salmon runs (ADFG, 2010), 
an important food source for CIBWss (NMFS1), and the timing of these 
runs has been correlated with beluga whale movements into the upper 
reaches of Knik Arm (Ezer et al., 2013).

Auditory Masking

    Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate 
social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from 
anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but 
only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the 
marine mammal (Southall et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 
2012). Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise 
could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that 
utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). 
Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources 
interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as 
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds 
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, 
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being 
severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
    Masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, 
can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even 
ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both 
senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic 
effects on marine mammal species and populations. Masking occurs at the 
frequency band which the animals utilize so the frequency range of the 
potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential 
behavioral impacts. Pile driving generates low frequency sounds; 
therefore, mysticete foraging is likely more affected than odontocetes 
given very high frequency echolocation clicks (typically associated 
with odontocete foraging) are likely unmasked to any significant 
degree. However, lower frequency man-made sounds may affect 
communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus 
reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 
and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et 
al., 2009).
    Moreover, even within a given species, different types of man-made 
noises may results in varying degrees of masking. For example, Erbe et 
al. (1999) and Erbe (2000), analyzed the effect of masking of beluga 
calls by exposing a trained beluga to icebreaker propeller noise, an 
icebreaker's bubbler system, and ambient Arctic ice cracking noise, and 
found that the latter was the least problematic for the whale detecting 
the calls. Sheifele et al. (2005) studied a population of belugas in 
the SLE to determine whether beluga vocalizations showed intensity 
changes in response to shipping noise. This type of behavior has been 
observed in humans and is known as the Lombard vocal response (Lombard 
1911). Sheifele et al. (2005) demonstrated that shipping noise did 
cause belugas to vocalize louder. The acoustic behavior of this same 
population of belugas was studied in the presence of ferry and small 
boat noise. Lesage et al. (1999) described more persistent vocal 
responses when whales were exposed to the ferry than to the small-boat 
noise. These included a progressive reduction in calling rate while 
vessels were approaching, an increase in the repetition of specific 
calls, and a shift to higher frequency bands used by vocalizing animals 
when vessels were close to the whales. The authors concluded that these 
changes, and the reduction in calling rate to almost silence, may 
reduce communication efficiency which is critical for a species of a 
gregarious nature. However, the authors also stated that because of the 
gregarious nature of belugas, this ``would not pose a serious problem 
for intraherd communication'' of belugas given the short distance 
between group members, and concluded a noise source would have to be 
very close to potentially limit any communication within the beluga 
group (Lesage et al. 1999). However, increasing the intensity or 
repetition rate, or shifting to higher frequencies when exposed to 
shipping noise (from merchant, whale watching, ferry and small boats), 
is indicative of an increase of energy costs (Bradbury and Vehrencamp 
1998).
    Marine mammals in Cook Inlet are continuously exposed to 
anthropogenic noise which may lead to some habituation but is also a 
source of masking. A subsample (8,756 hours) of the acoustic recordings 
collected by the Cook Inlet Beluga Acoustics research program in Cook 
Inlet, Alaska, from July 2008 to May 2013, were analyzed to describe 
anthropogenic sources of underwater noise, acoustic characteristics, 
and frequency of occurrence and evaluate the potential for acoustic 
impact to Cook Inlet belugas. As described in Castellote et al. (2016), 
a total of 13 sources of noise were identified: Commerical ship, 
dredging, helicopter, jet aircraft (commercial or non-fighter), jet 
aircraft (military fighter), outboard engine (small skiffs, rafts), 
pile driving, propeller aircraft, sub-bottom profiler, unclassified 
machinery (continuous mechanical sound; e.g., engine), unidentified 
`clank' or `bang' (impulsive mechanical sound; e.g., barge dumping), 
unidentified (unclassifiable anthropogenic sound), unknown up- or down-
sweep (modulated tone of mechanical origin; e.g., hydraulics). A total 
of 6,263 anthropogenic acoustic events were detected and classified, 
which had a total duration of 1,025 hours and represented 11.7% of the 
sound recordings analyzed. There was strong variability in source 
diversity, loudness, distribution, and seasonal occurrence of noise, 
which reflects the many different activities within the Cook Inlet. 
Cairn Point was the location where the loudness and duration of 
commercial ship noise events were most concentrated, due to activities 
at the POA. This specific source of anthropogenic noise was present in 
the recordings from all months analyzed, with highest levels in August. 
In addition to the concentrated shipping noise at Cairn Point, a 
combination of unknown noiseclasses occurred in this area, particularly 
during summer. Specifically, unknown up or down sweeps, unidentified, 
unclassed machinery, and unidentified clank or bang noise classes were 
all documented. In contrast, Eagle River (north of the

[[Page 72171]]

POA and where CIBWs concentrate to forage) was the quietest of all 
sampled locations.
    Potential Pile Driving Effects on Prey--Pile driving produces 
continuous, non-impulsive (i.e., vibratory pile driving) sounds and 
intermittent, pulsed (i.e., impact driving) sounds. Fish react to 
sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency 
sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes 
in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) 
identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid 
certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented 
effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies 
in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects (e.g., 
Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). SPLs of 
sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish 
mortality (summarized in Popper et al. 2014). The most likely impact to 
fish from pile driving 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.
    As discussed in the Marine Mammal section above, NMFS designated 
CIBW critical habitat in Knik Arm. Knik Arm is Type 1 habitat for the 
CIBWs, which means it is the most valuable, used intensively by beluga 
whales from spring through fall for foraging and nursery habitat. 
However, the POA, the adjacent navigation channel, and the turning 
basin were excluded from critical habitat designation due to national 
security concerns (76 FR 20180, April 11, 2011). Foraging primarily 
occurs at river mouths (e.g., Susitna Delta, Eagle River flats) which 
are unlikely to be influenced by pile driving activities. The Susitna 
Delta is more than 20 km from the POA and Cairn Point is likely to 
impede any pile driving noise from propagating into northern Knik Arm.
    Acoustic habitat is the soundscape which encompasses all of the 
sound present in a particular location and time, as a whole, when 
considered from the perspective of the animals experiencing it. Animals 
produce sound for, or listen for sounds produced by, conspecifics 
(communication during feeding, mating, and other social activities), 
other animals (finding prey or avoiding predators) and the physical 
environment (finding suitable habitats, navigating). Together, sounds 
made by animals and the geophysical environment (e.g., produced by 
earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, waves) make up the natural 
contributions to the total acoustics of a place. These acoustic 
conditions, termed acoustic habitat, are one attribute of an animal's 
total habitat. Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat 
influenced by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may 
include incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic or may 
be intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data 
acquisition purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays or other sources). 
Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its frequency content, duration, 
and loudness and these characteristics greatly influence the potential 
habitat-mediated effects to marine mammals (please see also the 
previous discussion on masking under ``Acoustic Effects''), which may 
range from local effects for brief periods of time to chronic effects 
over large areas and for long durations. Depending on the extent of 
effects to habitat, animals may alter their communications signals 
(thereby potentially expending additional energy) or miss acoustic cues 
(either conspecific or adventitious). For more detail on these concepts 
see, e.g., Barber et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al. 2011; Francis and 
Barber 2013; Lillis et al. 2014.
    Beluga foraging habitat is limited at the POA given the highly 
industrialized area. However, foraging habitat exists near the POA, 
including Ship Creek and to the north of Cairn Point. Potential impacts 
to foraging habitat include increased turbidity and elevation in noise 
levels during pile driving. Because the POA is replacing an existing 
terminal, permanent impacts from the presence of structures is 
negligible. Here, we focus on construction impacts such as increased 
turbidity and reference the section on acoustic habitat impacts above.
    Pile installation may temporarily increase turbidity resulting from 
suspended sediments. Any increases would be temporary, localized, and 
minimal. POA must comply with state water quality standards during 
these operations by limiting the extent of turbidity to the immediate 
project area. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation 
is localized to about a 25-foot (7.6 m) radius around the pile (Everitt 
et al. 1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the 
project activity areas to experience effects of turbidity, and any 
small cetaceans and pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of turbidity. 
Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be 
discountable to marine mammals. No impacts to Ship Creek or critical 
CIBW foraging habitats are anticipated.
    In summary, activities associated with the proposed PCT project are 
not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on marine mammal habitat 
or populations of fish species or on the quality of acoustic habitat. 
Marine mammals may choose to not forage in close proximity to the PCT 
site during pile driving; however, the POA is not a critical foraging 
location for any marine mammal species. As discussed above, harbor 
seals primarily use Ship Creek as foraging habitat within Knik Arm. 
Beluga whales utilize Eagle Bay and rivers north of the POA which are 
not expected to be ensonified by the PCT project. Therefore, no impacts 
to critical foraging grounds are anticipated.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as pile 
driving 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 
mysticetes, high frequency species, and phocids because predicted 
auditory injury zones are larger than for mid-frequency species and 
otariids. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency 
species and otariids. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures 
are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent 
practicable.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to 
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is 
estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine

[[Page 72172]]

mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent 
hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be 
ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence 
of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 
number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors 
can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction 
of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take 
estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring 
results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors 
considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2012). 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. In general, 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. However, ambient noise levels within 
Knik Arm are above the 120-dB threshold, and therefore, for purposes of 
this analysis, NMFS considers received levels above those of the 
measured ambient noise (122.2 dB) to constitute Level B harassment of 
marine mammals incidental to continuous noise, including vibratory pile 
driving.
    Results from the most recent acoustic monitoring conducted at the 
port are presented in Austin et al. (2016) and Denes et al. (2016) 
wherein noise levels were measured in absence of pile driving from May 
27 through May 30, 2016 at two locations: Ambient-Dock and Ambient-
Offshore. NMFS considers the median sound levels to be most appropriate 
when considering background noise levels for purposes of evaluating the 
potential impacts of the POA's PCT Project on marine mammals. By using 
median value, which is the 50th percentile of the measurements, for 
ambient noise level, one will be able to eliminate the few transient 
loud identifiable events that do not represent the true ambient 
condition of the area. This is relevant because during two of the four 
days (50 percent) when background measurement data were being 
collected, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was dredging Terminal 3 
(located just north of the Ambient-Offshore hydrophone) for 24 hours 
per day with two 1-hour breaks for crew change. On the last two days of 
data collection, no dredging was occurring. Therefore, the median 
provides a better representation of background noise levels when the 
PCT project would be occurring. With regard to spatial considerations 
of the measurements, the Ambient-Offshore location is most applicable 
to this discussion as it is complies with the NMFS 2012 memo discussed 
above. The median ambient noise level collected over four days at the 
end of May at the Ambient-Offshore hydrophone was 122.2 dB. We note the 
Ambient-Dock location was quieter, with a median of 117 dB; however, 
that hydrophone was placed very close to the dock and not where we 
would expect Level B harassment to occur given mitigation measures 
(e.g., shut downs). If additional data collected in the future warrant 
revisiting this issue, NMFS may adjust the 122.2 dB rms Level B 
harassment threshold.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) 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). The POA's proposed activity includes the 
use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory 
pile driving) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in Table 5 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

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

[[Page 72173]]

 
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
  has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
  National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
  incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
  ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
  generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
  the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
  and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
  be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
  it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
    The estimated sound source levels and transmission loss coefficient 
used in our analysis are based on direct measurements during 
installation of unattenuated 48-in piles during the POA's 2016 TPP and 
measurements collected during marine construction projects conducted by 
the U.S. Navy. All source levels used in our analysis are presented in 
Table 6.

                                         Table 6--Estimated Sound Source Level With and Without a Bubble Curtain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Sound Level at 10 m
                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and pile size                               Unattenuated \1\
                                                    Bubble curtain                     Data source
                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory                                               db rms
                                                7 dB reduction, dB rms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144-in............................                        178
                                                          171                       Caltrans 2015.
48-in.............................                        168
                                                          161                        Austin et al.
                                                                                              2016
36-in.............................                        166
                                                          159                           Navy 2015.
24-in.............................                        161
                                                          154                           Navy 2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Unattenuated \1\
                                                    Bubble curtain                  ..............
                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact                                      dB rms          dB SEL         dB peak          dB rms          dB SEL         dB peak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144-in............................             209             198             220             202             191             213  Caltrans 2015.
48-in.............................             200             187             215             193             180             208  Austin et al. 2016.
36-in.............................             194             184             211             187             177             204  Navy 2015.
24-in.............................             193             181             210             186             174             203  Navy 2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We note the only piles that may be driven or removed without a bubble curtain are 24-in battered piles. We included unattenuated SLs here for 36-in,
  48-in, and 144-in piles to demonstrate how the 7dB reduction for bubble curtains was applied.

    During the TPP, JASCO computed transmission loss (TL) coefficients, 
derived from fits of the received sound level data versus range. TL 
coefficients varied between piles with values ranging from 13 to 19.2 
for impact pile driving and from 12.6 to 17.9 for vibratory pile 
driving when using sound attenuation devices. Results for the 
unattenuated hydraulic impact hammer yielded the highest TL 
coefficient, 19.2, indicating that sounds from the hydraulic impact 
hammer decayed most rapidly with range compared to the other hammers. 
The TL coefficient for the unattenuated diesel impact hammer averaged 
17.5. Sounds from the unattenuated vibratory hammer had the lowest TL 
coefficient, with values of 16.1 and 16.9.
    Based on these data, the POA proposed different transmission loss 
rates depending on if SEL (used for Level A harassment) or rms (used 
for Level B harassment) values were being evaluated. SPLrms is a 
pressure metric and SEL an energy metric. The difference in TL 
coefficient is a reflection of how SPLrms or SEL is dissipated in the 
marine environment. During underwater sound propagation, pressure 
amplitude tends to suffer more loss due to multipath propagation and 
reverberation, while acoustic energy does not dissipate as rapidly. 
Accordingly, the POA proposed using TL rate of 16.85 for assessing 
potential for Level A harassment from impact pile driving but a TL rate 
of 18.35, based on Austin et al. (2016), when assessing potential for 
Level B harassment from impact pile driving. For vibratory pile 
driving, SPLrms is used for both Level A harassment and Level B 
harassment analysis and, based on Austin et al. (2016), the POA applied 
a TL rate of 16.5. NMFS found these transmission loss rates acceptable 
and carried them forward in our analysis.
    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with 
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A harassment 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 (such as pile 
driving), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, 
if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the 
activity, it would not incur PTS.
    The User Spreadsheet also includes a default, single frequency 
weighting factor adjustment (WFA) to account for frequency hearing 
groups. During the 2016 TPP, the POA collected direct measurements of 
sound generated

[[Page 72174]]

during installation of 48-in piles. The spectra associated with impact 
and vibratory driving 48-in unattenuated piles was also derived. 
Therefore, we accepted POA's applied spectra approach for 48-in piles 
but relied on the User Spreadsheet default WFA for all other pile 
sizes.
    Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet for 24-in, 36-in and 144-in 
piles, and the resulting isopleths are reported in Table 7.

                                                          Table 7--NMFS User Spreadsheet Inputs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      24-in (unattenuated)   24-in (bubble curtain)      36-in (bubble          48-in (bubble          144-in (bubble
                                    ------------------------------------------------        curtain)               curtain)               curtain)
        Spreadsheet Tab Used                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        (E.1) Impact pile       (E.1) Impact pile      (E.1) Impact pile      (E.1) Impact pile      (E.1) Impact pile
                                             driving                 driving                driving                driving                driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                User Spreadsheet Input: Impact Pile Driving (TL = 16.85)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (Single Strike/shot     181...................  174...................  177..................  180..................  191
 SEL).
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)..  2.....................  2.....................  2....................  measured spectra.....  2
Number of strikes pile.............  100...................  100...................  3,000................  2,300 or 3,000.......  5,000
Piles per day......................  5.....................  5.....................  1-3..................  1-3..................  0.3 or 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               User Spreadsheet Input: Vibratory Pile Driving (TL = 16.5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Spreadsheet Tab Used          (A) Non-Impul, Stat,    (A) Non-Impul, Stat,    (A) Non-Impul, Stat,   (A) Non-Impul, Stat,   (A) Non-Impul, Stat,
                                              Cont.                   Cont.                   Cont.                  Cont.                  Cont.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (SPL RMS).............  161...................  154...................  159..................  171..................  171
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)..  2.5...................  2.5...................  2.5..................  measured spectra.....  2.5
Time to drive single pile (minutes)  75....................  100...................  75...................  30...................  45
Piles per day......................  1-5...................  1-3...................  1-3..................  1....................  1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the Level B harassment isopleths, NMFS considered 
SPLrms source levels and the corresponding TL coefficients of 18.35 and 
16.5 for impact and vibratory pile driving, respectively. The resulting 
Level A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths are presented in 
Table 8.

           Table 8--Distances to Level A Harassment, by Hearing Group, and Level B Harassment Thresholds per Pile Type and Installation Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Piles                  Level A harassment  (m)                Level B
            Pile size                   Hammer type          Attenuation       installed/ --------------------------------------------------  harassment
                                                                                  day         LF        MF        HF        PW        OW         (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-in (2,300 strikes per pile)...  Impact..............  Bubble Curtain.....            1       655        34       766       376        36          629
                                                                                        2       989        51      1156       567        55  ...........
                                                                                        3      1258        65      1470       721        70  ...........
48-in (3,000 strikes per pile)...  Impact..............  Bubble Curtain.....            1       767        39       897       440        43          629
                                                                                        2      1158        59      1353       664        64  ...........
                                                                                        3      1473        76      1721       844        82  ...........
48-in............................  Vibratory...........  Bubble Curtain.....            1         5         1         7         3         0        2,247
36-in............................  Vibratory...........  Bubble Curtain.....            3        12         1        17         8         1        1,699
                                                                                        4        14         2        20         9         1  ...........
                                   Impact..............  Bubble Curtain.....            1       509        26       595       292        28          296
                                                                                        2       768        39       898       440        43  ...........
                                                                                        3       978        50      1142       560        54  ...........
24-in............................  Vibratory...........  Bubble Curtain.....            3         3         0         5         2         0          846
                                                                                        4         7         1        10         4         0  ...........
                                                         Unattenuated.......            3         9         1        13         6         1        2,247
                                                                                        4        19         2        27        12         1  ...........
                                   Impact..............  Bubble Curtain.....            5        77         4        90        44         4          261
                                                         Unattenuated.......            5       304        16       355       174        17          629
144-in...........................  Impact..............  Bubble Curtain.....          0.3      2286       117      2672      1311       127        1,945
                                                                                      0.7      3781       194      4418      2167       210        1,945
                                   Vibratory...........  ...................            1        24         3        34        15         1        9,069
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals and present take 
calculations.
    For all species of cetaceans other than beluga whales, density data 
is not available for upper Cook Inlet. Therefore, the POA relied on 
marine mammal monitoring data collected during past POA projects. These 
data cover the construction season (April through November) across 
multiple years. Estimated exposure from pile installation for all 
marine mammals except beluga whales is calculated by the following 
equation: Exposure estimate = N * # days of pile installation, where: N 
= highest daily abundance estimate for each species in project area 
across all years of data.

[[Page 72175]]

Harbor Seals

    Marine mammal monitoring data collected during from previous POA 
projects were used to estimate daily sighting rates for harbor seals in 
the project area. The highest individual sighting rate recorded for a 
previous year was used to quantify take of harbor seals for pile 
installation associated with the PCT. The number of sightings of harbor 
seals during 2016 TPP construction monitoring was 28 sightings recorded 
over 83.5 hours of monitoring from May 3 through June 21, 2016. Based 
on these observations, the sighting rate during the 2016 TPP 
construction monitoring period was one harbor seal every 3 hours, or 
approximately four harbor seals per 12-hour work day. Given projected 
positive population growth, it is anticipated that eight harbor seals 
may be observed, and potentially exposed to noise, per 12-hour work 
day.
    Pile installation and removal is anticipated to take approximately 
127 days for Phase 1 and 75 days for Phase 2. Therefore, we estimate 
that no more than 1,016 harbor seals during Phase 1 (8 harbor seals per 
day * 127 days) plus 600 harbor seals (8 harbor seals per day * 75 
days) during Phase 2, for a total of 1,616 harbor seals, would be 
potentially exposed to in-water noise levels exceeding the Level B 
harassment thresholds for pile installation/removal during PCT 
construction.
    The mouth of Ship Creek, where harbor seals tend to concentrate is 
located approximately 700 m from the southern end of the PCT, and is 
therefore located outside the harbor seals Level A zone for the 
majority of pile sizes for both impact and vibratory pile installation. 
However, there is potential for Level A harassment near Ship Creek 
during installation of three 48-in piles per day and installation of 
144-in piles. We estimate 30 percent of the Level B exposures could 
result in Level A harassment which is similar to the proportion of work 
where the Level A harassment isopleth extend to Ship Creek. Therefore, 
the POA has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize 305 Level A 
harassment and 711 Level B harassment takes in Phase 1 and 180 Level A 
harassment and 420 Level B harassment takes in Phase 2.

Steller Sea Lions

    Steller sea lions are anticipated to be encountered in low numbers, 
if at all, within the project area. Three sightings of what was likely 
a single individual occurred in the project area in 2009 and two 
sightings occurred in 2016. Based on observations in 2016, we 
anticipate an exposure rate of 2 individuals every 19 days during PCT 
pile installation and removal. Based on this rate, the POA requested 13 
sea lions takes during Phase 1 (127 days * [2 sea lions every 19 days]) 
and 8 Steller sea lion takes during Phase 2 (75 days for Phase 2 * [2 
sea lions every 19 days]). During installation of 144-in piles (Phase 
2), the Level A harassment isopleth extends beyond 100 m. Although 
Steller sea lions are readily detectable at these distances, we are not 
proposing the POA be required to shut down if a Steller sea lion is 
observed. Steller sea lions are rarely present in Knik Arm; however, 
they can linger in the area for multiple days. During Phase 1, the 
Level A harassment isopleth is less than the 100 m shutdown zone for 
all scenarios; therefore, the potential for Level A take is negligible. 
During installation of the 144-in piles in Phase 2, there is a low 
potential for Level A harassment and an animal may remain for a couple 
days; therefore, we allocate two takes in Phase 2 to Level A 
harassment.

Harbor Porpoise

    Previous monitoring data at the POA were used to evaluate daily 
sighting rates for harbor porpoises in the project area. During most 
years of monitoring, no harbor porpoises were observed. The highest 
individual sighting rate for any recorded year during pile installation 
and removal associated with the PCT was an average of 0.09 harbor 
porpoises per day during 2009 construction monitoring, but this value 
may not account for increased sightings in Upper Cook Inlet (Shelden et 
al. 2014). Therefore, the POA assumed that one harbor porpoise could be 
observed every 2 days of pile driving. Based on this assumption, the 
POA has requested, and NMFS is proposing to authorize, 64 exposures 
during Phase 1 (127 days * [1 harbor porpoise every 2 days]) and 38 
harbor porpoises during Phase 2 (75 days for Phase 2 * [1 harbor 
porpoise every 2 days]). This estimate also covers the possibility that 
larger groups (2-3 individuals) of harbor porpoise could occur 
occasionally.
    Harbor porpoises are relatively small cetaceans that move at high 
velocities, which can make their detection and identification at great 
distances difficult. Using the NMFS User Spreadsheet, impact driving 
36-in, 48-in and 144-in piles results in Level A harassment isopleths 
larger than the Level B harassment isopleth. Vibratory driving and 
removal result in much smaller Level B harassment zone than Level B 
harassment zones and many temporary piles (the bulk of the work) would 
be installed and removed with a vibratory hammer. Further, the Level A 
harassment isopleths consider long durations and harbor porpoise are 
likely moving through the area, if present, not lingering. Therefore, 
we propose to authorize approximately one-third of the expected take to 
Level A harassment. For Phase 1, we are proposing to authorize 21 takes 
by Level A harassment and 43 takes by Level B harassment. For Phase 2, 
we propose to authorize 13 Level A harassment and 25 Level B harassment 
takes.

Killer Whales

    Few, if any, killer whales are expected to approach the project 
area. No killer whales were sighted during previous monitoring programs 
for the Knik Arm Crossing and POA construction projects, including the 
2016 TPP. The infrequent sightings of killer whales that are reported 
in upper Cook Inlet tend to occur when their primary prey (anadromous 
fish for resident killer whales and beluga whales for transient killer 
whales) are also in the area (Shelden et al. 2003). Previous sightings 
of transient killer whales have documented pod sizes in upper Cook 
Inlet between one and six individuals (Shelden et al. 2003). The 
potential for exposure of killer whales within the Level B harassment 
isopleths is anticipated to be extremely low. Level B take is 
conservatively estimated at no more than 12 individuals during Phase 1 
and Phase 2 to account for two large (n = 12) groups or several smaller 
groups. No Level A harassment take for killer whales is anticipated or 
proposed to be authorized due to the small Level A harassment zones and 
implementation of a 100 m shutdown which is larger than Level A 
harassment isopleths.

Humpback Whales

    Sightings of humpback whales in the project area are rare, and the 
potential risk of exposure of a humpback whale to sounds exceeding the 
Level B harassment threshold is low. Few, if any, humpback whales are 
expected to approach the project area. However, there were two 
sightings in 2017 of what was likely a single individual at the Ship 
Creek Boat Launch (ABR 2017) which is located south of the project 
area. Based on these data, the POA conservatively estimates one 
humpback whale could be harassed every 16 days of pile driving. 
Therefore, the POA requested 8 humpback whale takes during Phase 1 (127 
days for Phase 1 * [1 humpback whale every 16 days]) and 5 takes (75 
days for Phase 2 * [1 humpback whale every 16 days]) for Phase 2. This 
could include sighting a

[[Page 72176]]

cow-calf pair on multiple days or multiple sightings of single humpback 
whales. The POA did not request Level A take of humpback whales; 
however, based on the distances to the large Level A harassment 
thresholds relative to Level B harassment isoplehts and the fact 
humback whale sightings in Upper Cook Inlet is rare, NMFS is proposing 
to issue two Level A harassment takes per year to account for a single 
individual or a cow/calf pair. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to issue 
two Level A harassment takes and six Level B harassment takes during 
Phase 1 and two Level A harassment takes and three Level B harassment 
takes for Phase 2.

Beluga Whales

    For beluga whales, we looked at several sources of information on 
marine mammal occurrence in upper Cook Inlet to determine how best to 
estimate the potential for exposure to pile driving noise from the PCT 
Project. In their application, the POA took a two-step approach to 
estimating Level B harassment take. The POA first estimated the numbers 
of beluga whales potentially exposed to noise levels above the Level B 
harassment threshold for pile installation and removal using the 
following formula: Beluga Exposure Estimate = N * Area * number of days 
of pile installation/removal, where: N = maximum predicted # of beluga 
whales/km\2\ in Knik Arm (0.291 whales/km\2\) based on data from Goetz 
et al. (2012a) and Area = Area ensonified above Level B harassment 
threshold (km\2\). We note the actual beluga whale densities within the 
Level B harassment isopleths predicted for the PCT project ranged from 
0.042 to 0.236 beluga whales/km\2\. However, the POA applied the 
highest beluga whale density in upper Knik Arm. The higher densities 
north of the POA are expected as beluga whales tend to concentrate in 
Eagle Bay to forage whereas in the lower Arm, where the POA is located, 
habitat use is more commonly associated with traveling. The POA's 
simple calculation results in 103 takes in Phase 1 and 125 takes in 
Phase 2. The second step in POA's take estimate approach was to apply a 
50 percent correction factor to their density-based calculation. The 
POA provided several reasons why this reduction factor was appropriate, 
including, but not limited to: The POA's commitment to using a bubble 
curtain means that noise levels along the western side of Knik Arm will 
remain below the regulatory thresholds; providing a travel corridor for 
beluga whales to access upper Knik Arm; for the majority of PCT 
construction and pile installation and removal, only approximately half 
of the width of Knik Arm, along the eastern shore, would be ensonified; 
beluga whales observed in Knik Arm during the autumn were most 
frequently sighted on the western side of the arm (Funk et al. 2005); 
and beluga whales in Knik Arm year-round; however, sightings are much 
lower in winter through early summer.
    We reviewed the POA's density-based take calculation approach and 
their reasons for applying a 50 percent correction factor. We 
determined use of the Goetz density data for this specific project is 
problematic because the density data is based on June aerial surveys 
while the PCT project is occurring from April through November, the 
data is over seven years old, and the multiple years of monitoring data 
collected by the POA is not incorporated into this approach. Regarding 
the rationale for applying a 50 percent correction factor, we found the 
use of a bubble curtain and the fact the majority of pile driving would 
ensonify half or less than half of the width of Knik Arm is already 
captured by the ensonsified area which is embedded into the take 
calculation. The POA is not pile driving during winter when beluga 
whale abundance is lowest and although early summer tends to see lower 
beluga abundance, the density used in the take calculation is from June 
surveys. Finally, any habituation to repeated exposure may be 
considered qualitatively in analyzing the intensity of reactions to 
pile driving but it cannot be quantified and is not considered in take 
estimates.
    To better capture beluga whale distribution and abundance, we 
undertook a multi-step analysis consisting of an evaluation of long-
term, seasonal sighting data, proposed mitigation and monitoring 
measures, the amount of documented take from previous POA projects 
compared to authorized take, and considered group size. First, in lieu 
of density data, NMFS applied sighting rate data presented in Kendell 
and Cornick (2015) to estimate hourly sighting rates per month (April 
through November). We then identified hours of pile driving per month. 
The POA indicated there will be extended durations when no pile driving 
is happening (e.g., later in the season when decking and other out-of-
water work is occurring); however, the schedule could not be more 
refined than assuming an equal work distribution across the 
construction season. The POA did indicate the first two weeks of April 
and the last two weeks in November would be most likely utilized for 
equipment mobilization and demobilization; therefore, pile driving 
effort during those months were limited to two weeks. The data and 
calculated exposure estimates are presented below. These calculations 
assume no mitigation (i.e., uncorrected take estimates) and that all 
animals observed would enter a given Level B harassment zone during 
pile driving. In total, we would expect approximately 94 exposures in 
Phase 1 and 60 exposures in Phase 2.

                                      Table 9--Uncorrected Beluga Whale Exposure Estimates for Phase 1 and Phase 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Monitoring data \1\                                 Estimated instances of take
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Month                                      Number of                     Pile driving        CIBW        Pile driving        CIBW
                                           Effort hours       whales      Average whale/  hours  Phase 1     exposures    hours  Phase 2     exposures
                                                             observed           hr              \2\           Phase 1           \2\           Phase 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April...................................              12               2            0.17           25.64            4.27           16.37            2.73
May.....................................             156              40            0.26           51.29           13.15           32.71            8.39
June....................................             280               8            0.03           51.29            1.47           32.71            0.94
July....................................             360               2            0.01           51.29            0.28           32.71            0.18
August..................................             426             269            0.63           51.29           32.38           32.71           20.65
Sept....................................             447             169            0.38           51.29           19.37           32.71           12.35
October.................................             433              22            0.05           51.29            2.61           32.71            1.66
Nov.....................................             215             175            0.82           25.64           20.91           16.37           13.35
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................            2317             685            0.30          359.02           94.44          229.00           60.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From Kendell and Cornick 2015.
\2\ Assumes equal work distribution/month except in April and November when the POA has indicated they would be conducting only 2 weeks of pile driving
  due to time needed for mobilization and demobilization.


[[Page 72177]]

    Second, NMFS then considered the proposed mitigation and 
distribution of beluga whales in Knik Arm. In the POA's application, 
they proposed a 100-m shutdown zone. However, as described in more 
detail below, NMFS has imposed additional mitigation designed to reduce 
Level B harassment take as well as Level A harassment take. We 
recognize that in certain situations, pile driving may not be able to 
be shutdown prior to whales entering the Level B harassment zone due to 
safety concerns. Sometimes beluga whales were initially observed when 
they surfaced within the harassment zone. For example, on November 4, 
2009, 15 whales were initially sighted approximately 950 meters north 
of the project site near the shore, and then they surfaced in the Level 
B harassment zone during vibratory pile driving (ICRC 2009b). 
Construction activities were immediately shut down, but the 15 whales 
were documented as takes. On other occasions, beluga whales were 
initially sighted outside of the harassment zone and shut down was 
called, but the beluga whales swam into the harassment zone before 
activities could be halted, and take occurred. For example, on 
September 14, 2009, a construction observer sighted a white beluga 
whale just outside the harassment zone, moving quickly towards the 
1,300 meter Level B harassment zone during vibratory pile driving. The 
animal entered the harassment zone before construction activity could 
be shut down, and was documented as a take (ICRC 2009c).
    To more accurately estimate potential exposures, we looked at 
previous takes at the POA and those actually authorized. Between 2008 
and 2012, NMFS authorized 34 beluga whale takes per year to POA with 
mitigation measures similar to the measures proposed here. The percent 
of the authorized takes that were documented as actually occurring 
during this time period ranged from 12 to 59 percent with an average of 
36 percent (Table 10). The previous method of estimating take was based 
on density; however, the results between using densities versus 
sighting rate are somewhat comparable (e.g., 94 exposures in Phase 1 
using sighting rates versus 103 exposures using density). Further, 
there was extensive scientific monitoring and POA construction 
monitoring occurring during these time periods; therefore, we believe 
there is little potential animals were taken but not observed. 
Therefore we believe this first step in our analysis is reasonable.

            Table 10--Authorized and Reported Beluga Whale Takes During POA Activities From 2009-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Percent of
                       ITA effective dates                        Reported takes    Authorized      authorized
                                                                                       take       takes occurred
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 July 2008-14 July 2009.......................................              12              34              35
15 July 2009-14 July 2010.......................................              20              34              59
15 July 2010-14 July 2011.......................................              13              34              38
15 July 2011-14 July 2012.......................................               4              34              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we applied the highest percentage of previous takes to 
ensure potential impacts to beluga whales are fully evaluated and to 
ensure the POA has an adequate amount of take. Therefore, we assume 
that approximately 59 percent of the takes calculated for Phase 1 
(n=94) and Phase 2 (n=64) will actually be realized. This approach is 
further supported by the proposed mitigation measures which are strict 
shutdown requirements for CIBWs with a goal of avoiding Level B take 
altogether, similar to previous POA mitigation measures.
    Finally, we then considered group size from the long-term 
scientific monitoring effort and POA opportunistic data to determine if 
these numbers represented realistic scenarios. Figure 2 presents data 
from the scientific monitoring program. The APU scientific monitoring 
data set documented 390 beluga whale sightings.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30DE19.011


[[Page 72178]]


    Group size exhibits a mode of 1 and a median of 2, indicating that 
over half of the beluga groups observed over the 5-year span of the 
monitoring program were of individual beluga whales or groups of 2. The 
95th percentile of group size from the APU scientific monitoring data 
set is 11.1 beluga whales. This means that, of the 390 documented 
beluga whale groups in this data set, 95 percent consisted of fewer 
than 11.1 whales; 5 percent of the groups consisted of more than 11.1 
whales. We conclude the amount of take proposed to be authorized 
following the approach above allows for the potential for large groups 
to be exposed to noise above NMFS harassment thresholds.
    For reasons described above, NMFS believes this approach adequately 
analyzes the risk of beluga whale exposure to Level B harassment from 
the PCT Project. We conclude there is the potential for 45 exposures in 
Phase 1 and 33 exposures in Phase 2 (Table 11).

      Table 11--Proposed Beluga Whale Level B Harassment Exposures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Calculated
      PCT construction phase             exposure      Proposed take \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1--2020.....................                 94                 55
Phase 2--2021.....................                 60                 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed take is identified as 59 percent of the calculated
  exposures using sighting rates.

    In summary, the total amount of Level A harassment and Level B 
harassment proposed to be authorized for each marine mammal stock is 
presented in Table 12.

                                             Table 12--Proposed Amount of Take, by Stock and Harassment Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Phase 1 (2020)                                  Phase 2 (2021)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                       Stock                                           Percent of                                      Percent of
                                                              Level A         Level B          stock          Level A         Level B          stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale....................  Western N Pacific...               2               6             0.7               2               4             0.7
Beluga whale......................  Cook Inlet..........               0              55              17               0              35              11
Killer whale......................  Transient/Alaska                   0              12               2               0              12               2
                                     Resident.
Harbor porpoise...................  Gulf of Alaska......              21              43             0.2              13              25             0.2
Steller sea lion..................  Western.............               0              13            <0.1               2               6            <0.1
Harbor seal.......................  Cook Inlet/Shelikof.             305             711             3.6             180             420             2.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental 
take authorizations to include information about the availability and 
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and 
manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks 
and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned), and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    The POA presented a number of mitigation measures in section 11 of 
their application. NMFS accepted a number of these measures (e.g., use 
of bubble curtains on all plumb piles) but also requested the POA 
consider additional noise attenuation measures and modified shut down 
zones, among other things. We present mitigation measures NMFS has 
determined to affect the least practicable adverse impact on marine 
mammals and their habitat followed by a discussion of the ongoing 
considerations by NMFS and the POA which will be made final prior to 
issuance of the final IHA.
    A key mitigation measure NMFS considered for this project is 
reducing noise levels propagating into the environment. The POA will 
use a bubble curtain on all plumb piles. At this time, NMFS is not 
requiring an unconfined bubble curtain. The POA presented a Technical 
Manual on the analysis of water current velocity data collected in the 
vicinity of the proposed PCT (TerraSound 2016) demonstrating current 
speeds were approximately 3 knots (kts) during times when tides were 
strongest. The POA has not finalized the bubble curtain design; 
however, bubble ring placement and bubble sizes and spacing must combat 
the current. In addition, the sound source verification results (see 
Proposed

[[Page 72179]]

Monitoring and Reporting Measures section below) must demonstrate the 
bubble curtain is achieving consistent noise attenuation such that 
source levels are at or below those evaluated in this document during 
all tide phases. The bubble curtain will be designed to absorb as much 
sound as possible. The POA proposed, and NMFS is requiring, all plumb 
piles installed in-water be done so in the presence of a fully 
operational bubble curtain.
    The POA is also currently evaluating means by which to reduce sound 
propagation on battered piles. The POA has indicated that a full bubble 
curtain ring is not possible on battered piles; however, NMFS has 
requested the POA further investigate other means of reducing noise 
such as a linear or semi-circular curtain around the work area. The POA 
is actively looking into this and final noise attenuation plans will be 
made prior to issuance of the IHA. We note that for purposes of our 
analysis here, NMFS did not consider any noise attenuation during 
installation of battered piles. However, we are requiring that 
unattenuated piles not be driven in water depths greater than 3 meters 
based on the cutoff frequency (Roger and Cox, 1988). The intent of this 
measure is to reduce sound propagation. In shallower waters, lower 
frequencies tend to be cutoff more rapidly than high frequency sources.
    In addition to noise attenuation devices, NMFS considered the 
amount of sound energy entering the aquatic environment. The 
installation of 144-in piles is included in Phase 2 (2021) and NMFS has 
determined that given the extensive Level B harassment zone generated 
from this activity, vibratory driving these large piles during peak 
beluga whale season poses an amount of risk and uncertainty to the 
degree that it should be minimized. Therefore, vibratory driving 144-in 
piles will not occur during August. Further, to minimize the potential 
for overlapping sound fields from multiple stressors, the POA will not 
simultaneously operate two vibratory hammers for either pile 
installation or removal. This measure is designed to reduce 
simultaneous in-water noise exposure. Because impact hammers will 
unlikely be dropping at the same time, and to expedite construction of 
the project to minimize pile driving during peak beluga whale abundance 
periods, NMFS is not proposing to restrict the operation of two impact 
hammers at the same time. We note that harassment zones during impact 
pile driving will radiate from both of the piles being driven, not a 
single pile.
    NMFS also considered other means by which to remove piles since the 
majority of piles installed for this project are temporary (we note the 
POA reduced the amount of temporary piles originally proposed for this 
project). NMFS inquired about the potential to direct pull piles or cut 
them off at the mudline; thereby, reducing in-water noise levels. The 
POA responded that the depth at which temporary piles would be 
installed and substrate precludes directly pulling the piles. Cutting 
piles at the mudline also presents navigational (e.g., anchoring) and 
safety concerns.
    In their IHA application, the POA proposed a 100-m shutdown zone 
for all marine mammals or, where the Level A harassment zone was deemed 
to be greater than 100 m, a shutdown zone equivalent to the Level A 
harassment zone. NMFS found this measure did not effect the least 
practicable adverse impact on marine mammals for several reasons.
    First, except for 48-in piles, the Level A harassment zones in the 
application are based on estimated spectra which NMFS does not support. 
Therefore, NMFS calculated Level A harassment zones for all piles 
(except 48-in piles) using the single frequency, default weighting 
factor adjustment provided in the NMFS User Spreadsheet. As shown in 
Table 8, Level A harassment zones for low-frequency and high frequency 
cetaceans and pinnipeds are rather large when considering multiple 
piles installed per day and installation of the 144-in piles. Sighting 
rates at these distances, specifically for harbor seals and porpoise, 
are unlikely to be good enough to ensure effective coverage. For these 
reasons, NMFS proposes a 100-m shutdown zone for all marine mammals 
(except beluga whales).
    For beluga whales, NMFS determined the proposed shutdown zone of 
100 m or the Level A harassment zone (if greater than 100 m) was not 
consistent with the conservation intentions of the POA nor what NMFS 
would consider as effecting the least practicable adverse impact based 
on the proposed project description and acoustic analysis. NMFS and the 
POA entered into discussions to discuss these opinions and have 
determined that measures and shutdown zones used in previous IHAs would 
ensure valuable protection and conservation of beluga whales. For this 
reason, NMFS is proposing the POA implement the following measures for 
CIBWs:
     Prior to the onset of pile driving, should a beluga 
whale(s) be observed within Knik Arm or approaching the mouth of Knik 
Arm, pile driving will be delayed until the whale moves away from the 
POA or is not re-sighted within 30 minutes. If non-beluga whale species 
are observed within or likely to enter the Level B harassment zone 
prior to pile driving, the POA may commence pile driving, recording and 
reporting MMPA take that occurs as a result.
     If pile driving has commenced and a beluga whale is 
observed within or likely to enter the Level B harassment zone, pile 
driving will shut down and not re-commence until the whale is out of 
and on a path away from the Level B harassment zone or until no beluga 
whale has been observed in the level B harassment zone for 30 minutes.
     If, during pile driving, PSOs can no longer effectively 
monitor all waters within the Level B harassment zone for the presence 
of marine mammals due to environmental conditions (e.g., fog, rain, 
wind), pile driving may continue only until the current segment of pile 
is driven; no additional sections of pile or additional piles may be 
driven until conditions improve such that the Level B harassment zone 
can be effectively monitored. If the Level B harassment zone cannot be 
monitored for more than 15 minutes, the entire Level B zone must be 
cleared again for 30 minutes prior to pile driving.
    In addition to these measures which greatly reduce the potential 
for harassment to beluga whales and set shutdown zones that 
realistically reflect non-beluga whale detectability, NMFS is including 
general mitigation measures typically included in IHAs:
     PSOs shall begin observing for marine mammals 30 minutes 
before pile driving begins for the day and must continue for 30 minutes 
when pile driving ceases at any time. If pile driving has ceased for 
more than 30 minutes within a day, another 30-minute pre-pile driving 
observation period is required before pile driving may commence.
     POA must use soft start techniques when impact pile 
driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of 
three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting 
period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. A soft start 
must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and 
at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 
thirty minutes or longer.
     For in-water construction other than pile driving, the POA 
must cease operations or reduce vessel speed to the minimum level 
required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions if a marine 
mammal approaches within 10 m of the equipment or vessel.

[[Page 72180]]

     POA is required to conduct briefings for construction 
supervisors and crews, the monitoring team, and POA staff prior to the 
start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the 
work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, 
the marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
     If a species for which authorization has not been granted, 
or a species for which authorization has been granted but the 
authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the 
monitoring zone (Table 8), 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 the 30 minutes observation time period has elapsed.
    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 and on the 
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    During the 2016 TPP, observers for that project ()provided a number 
of recommendations to improve marine mammal monitoring for POA 
projects. These recommendations included:
     A minimum of three PSOs at an observation station is 
necessary to prevent fatigue and increase accuracy of detecting marine 
mammals, especially for large[hyphen]radius zones. When using three 
PSOs, one PSO is observing, one PSO is recording data (and observing 
when there are no data to record), and the third PSO is resting. A 
fourth PSO allows the scanning of a 90[hyphen]degree arc, instead of a 
180[hyphen]degree arc, increasing scan intensity and the likelihood of 
detecting marine mammals. Thirty to 60 minute rotations work well with 
this schedule.
     Communications between the pile driving/construction 
contractor and the PSOs should take place between one dedicated point 
of contact, or Lead PSO, for each shift.
     Each observation station should employ a pair of 
25[hyphen]power binoculars as they were superior to the 7- and 10- 
power binoculars at detecting and identifying marine mammals at greater 
distances.
     Electronic data collection methods should be considered. 
iPad applications and other technological advances make it possible to 
collect data quickly and accurately. A theodolite can be plugged into 
the device and marine mammal locations can be calculated on the spot, 
minimizing uncertainty. Data can be downloaded throughout the day to a 
database, eliminating the need for data entry by hand, and allowing 
quicker data assessment.
     Hard copy maps with pre[hyphen]established 
grid[hyphen]cells and harassment zones specific to the pile location 
being driven were invaluable. These maps allowed for immediate, 
accurate and consistent identification of marine mammal locations 
relative to the harassment zones, regardless of observation station.
    The POA's IHA application addresses the majority of these 
recommendations in its Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (Appendix A in 
POA's application) and NMFS proposes additional measures here. NMFS is 
requiring at least three PSOs (two on-watch and one to record data) 
will be positioned at the norther and southern station while two PSOs 
will be on-watch at the PCT (i.e., pile driving) station. Each station 
will be equipped with several pieces of equipment (see section 2.4 in 
Appendix A of POA's application), including 25x binoculars and a range 
finders, as recommended above. One station will have a theodolite. PSOs 
may observe for no more than 4 hours at time and no more than 12 hours 
per day. The POA will submit all PSO CVs to NMFS prior to a PSO working 
on this project. Where necessary, NMFS may require a potential PSO 
shadow an experienced PSO before working independently.
    To improve beluga whale detection, NMFS has worked with the POA to 
include PSO stations in different locations than the three stations 
proposed by the POA, which were all on POA property. The POA will have 
three PSO stations. One PSO station will be located at the PCT pile 
driving site. One station will be at Port Wornzof or a similar location 
to maximize beluga whale detection outside of Knik Arm and the mouth of 
Knik Arm. PSOs at this location will have unencumbered views of the 
entrance to Knik Arm and can provide information on beluga whale group 
dynamics (e.g., group size, demographics, etc) and behavior of animals 
approaching Knik Arm in the absence of and during pile driving. We have 
also considered moving a station from the POA property to Port 
MacKenzie for an improved view of beluga whales moving from north to 
south within Knik Arm. However, the POA is currently investigating if 
this is an option with respect to accessibility (i.e. private property) 
and personnel safety. If Port MacKenzie is not an available option, the 
third PSO station will be located toward the north end of the POA 
property. The exact placement of this northern station will be 
determined prior to issuing the IHA. We note the previous station at 
Cairn Point

[[Page 72181]]

used several years ago is Elemendorf Air Force Base property and is no 
longer accessible.
    For both Phase 1 and Phase 2, NMFS is requiring the POA submit 
interim weekly and monthly monitoring reports during the PCT 
construction season. These reports must include a summary of marine 
mammal species and behavioral observations, pile driving shutdowns or 
delays, and pile work completed. A final end-of season report will be 
submitted to NMFS within 90 days following pile driving. The report 
must include: Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal 
monitoring; a description of daily construction activities, weather 
parameters and water conditions during each monitoring period; number 
of marine mammals observed, by species, distances and bearings of each 
marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed, age and sex 
class, if possible; number of individuals of each species 
(differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring 
zone, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a 
correction factor may be applied); description of mitigation triggered, 
and description of attempts to distinguish between the number of 
individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take. In 
addition, any acoustic data and analysis collected throughout the year 
will also be made available to NMFS in the form of an interim report 
within 10 days of data collection and a final report within 60 days. 
Mean, median, and peak sound source levels (dB re: 1[micro]Pa): 
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum), peak sound pressure level 
(SPLpeak), root mean square sound pressure level (SPLrms), and single-
strike sound exposure level (SELs-s) will be reported as well as pile 
descriptions and acoustic monitoring methods (e.g., sampling rate, 
distance to the hydrophone from the pile, etc.).
    NMFS has also included reporting requirements for more uncommon 
situations. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity 
clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by 
this IHA, such as serious injury, or mortality, POA must immediately 
cease the specified activities and report the incident to the NMFS. In 
the event POA 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), POA must immediately report the incident to the 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Region Stranding 
Coordinator, NMFS. In addition, in the event that POA 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 specified 
activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to 
advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), POA must report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 
Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all 
species listed in Table 4 except for CIBWs, given that many of the 
anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks 
are expected to be relatively similar in nature. For CIBWs, there are 
meaningful differences in anticipated individual responses to 
activities, impact of expected take on CIBWs), or impacts on habitat; 
therefore, we provide a supplemental analysis for CIBWs, independent of 
the other species for which we propose to authorize take.
    NMFS has identified key factors which may be employed to assess the 
level of analysis necessary to conclude whether potential impacts 
associated with a specified activity should be considered negligible. 
These include (but are not limited to) the type and magnitude of 
taking, the amount and importance of the available habitat for the 
species or stock that is affected, the duration of the anticipated 
effect to the species or stock, and the status of the species or stock. 
The following factors support a negligible impact determination for the 
affected stocks of humpback whales, killer whales, harbor porpoise, 
harbor seals, and Steller sea lions. Some of these also apply to CIBWs; 
however, a more detailed analysis for CIBWs is provided below.
     No takes by mortality or serious injury are anticipated or 
authorized;
     The number of total takes (by Level A and Level B 
harassment) are less than 3 percent of the best available abundance 
estimates for all stocks;
     Take would not occur in places and/or times where take 
would be more likely to accrue to impacts on reproduction or survival, 
such as within ESA-designated or proposed critical habitat, 
biologically important areas (BIA), or other habitats critical to 
recruitment or survival (e.g., rookery);
     Take would occur over a short timeframe, being limited to 
the short duration a marine mammal would likely be present within a 
Level B harassment zone during pile driving;
     Any impacts to marine mammal habitat from pile driving are 
temporary and minimal; and
     Take would only occur within upper Cook Inlet--a limited, 
confined area of any given stock's home range.
    For CIBWs, we further discuss our negligible impact finding in the 
context of potential impacts to this endangered stock. As described in 
the Recovery Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (NMFS, 2016), NMFS 
determined the following physical or biological features are essential 
to the conservation of this species: (1) Intertidal and subtidal waters 
of Cook Inlet with depths less than 30 feet mean lower low water (9.1 
m) and within 5 mi (8 km) of high and medium flow anadromous fish 
streams; (2) Primary prey species consisting of four species of Pacific 
salmon (Chinook, sockeye, chum, and coho), Pacific eulachon, Pacific 
cod, walleye pollock, saffron cod, and yellowfin sole, (3) Waters free 
of toxins or other agents of a type and amount harmful to CI beluga 
whales, (4) Unrestricted passage within or between the critical habitat 
areas, and

[[Page 72182]]

(5) Waters with in-water noise below levels resulting in the 
abandonment of critical habitat areas by CI beluga whales. The PCT 
would not impact essential features 1-3 listed above. All construction 
would be done in a manner implementing best management practices to 
preserve water quality and no work would occur around creek mouths or 
river systems leading to prey abundance reductions. In addition, no 
physical structures would restrict passage; however, impacts to the 
acoustic habitat are of concern. Previous marine mammal monitoring data 
at the POA demonstrate beluga whales indeed pass by the POA during pile 
driving. As described above, there was no significant difference in 
beluga sighting rate with and in the absence of pile driving (Kendell 
and Cornick, 2015). However, beluga whales do swim faster and in 
tighter formation in the presence of pile driving (Kendell and Cornick, 
2015).
    During review of the POA's application, NMFS was concerned that 
exposure to pile driving at the PCT could result in beluga whales 
avoiding Knik Arm and thereby not accessing the productive foraging 
grounds north of POA such as Eagle River flats based on the proposed 
project and mitigation measures--thus, impacting essential feature 
number 5 above. Although the data previously presented demonstrate 
whales are not abandoning the area (i.e., no significant difference in 
sighting rate with and without pile driving), we considered the results 
of a recent expert elicitation (EE) at a 2016 workshop, which predicted 
the impacts of noise on CIBW survival and reproduction given lost 
foraging opportunities, to inform our assessment of impacts on this 
stock. The 2016 EE workshop used conceptual models of an interim 
population consequences of disturbance (PCoD) for marine mammals (NRC 
2005; New et al. 2014, Tollit et al., 2016) to help in understanding 
how noise-related stressors might affect vital rates (survival, birth 
rate and growth) for CIBW (King et al. 2015). NMFS (2015, section 
IX.D--CI Beluga Hearing, Vocalization, and Noise Supplement) suggests 
that the main direct effects of noise on CIBW are likely to be through 
masking of vocalizations used for communication and prey location, and 
habitat degradation. The 2016 workshop on beluga whales was 
specifically designed to provide regulators with a tool to help 
understand whether chronic and acute anthropogenic noise from various 
sources and projects are likely to be limiting recovery of the CIBW 
population. The full report can be found at http://www.smruconsulting.com/publications/ and we provide a summary of the 
expert elicitation portion of the workshop here.
    For each of the noise effect mechanisms chosen for expert 
elicitation, the experts to provide a set of parameter values that 
determined the forms of a relationship between the number of days of 
disturbance a female CIBW experiences in a particular period and the 
effect of that disturbance on her energy reserves. Examples included 
the number of days of disturbance during the period April, May and June 
that would be predicted to reduce the energy reserves of a pregnant 
CIBW to such a level that she is certain to terminate the pregnancy or 
abandon the calf soon after birth, the number of days of disturbance in 
the period April-September required to reduce the energy reserves of a 
lactating CIBW to a level where she is certain to abandon her calf, and 
the number of days of disturbance where a female fails to gain 
sufficient energy by the end of summer to maintain themselves and their 
calves during the subsequent winter. Overall, median values ranged from 
16 to 69 days of disturbance depending on the question. However, for 
this elicitation, a ``day of disturbance'' was defined as any day on 
which an animal loses the ability to forage for at least one tidal 
cycle (i.e., it forgoes 50-100% of its energy intake on that day). 
Therefore, disturbance in this context is not equivalent to Level B 
harassment. The mitigation measures NMFS has proposed for the PCT 
project are designed to avoid the potential that any animal would lose 
the ability to forage for one or more tidal cycles. While Level B 
harassment (behavioral disturbance) is proposed to be authorized, our 
mitigation measures would minimize the intensity of that harassment to 
behavioral changes such as increased swim speeds, tighter group 
formations, and cessation of vocalizations, not the loss of foraging 
capabilities. Regardless, this elicitation recognized that pregnant or 
lactating females and calves are inherently more at risk than other 
animals, such as males. NMFS first considered proposing the POA 
shutdown based on more vulnerable life stages (e.g., calf presence) but 
ultimately determined all beluga whales warranted pile driving shutdown 
to be protective of potential vulnerable life stages, such as 
pregnancy, that could not be determined from observations, and to avoid 
more severe behavioral reaction.
    Monitoring data from the POA suggest pile driving does not 
discourage beluga whales from entering Knik Arm and travelling to 
critical foraging grounds such as those around Eagle Bay. As previously 
described, sighting rates were not different in the presence or absence 
of pile driving. This is not surprising as food is a strong motivation 
for marine mammals. As described in Forney et al. (2017), animals 
typically favor particular areas because of their importance for 
survival (e.g. feeding or breeding), and leaving may have significant 
costs to fitness (reduced foraging success, increased predation risk, 
increased exposure to other anthropogenic threats). Consequently, 
animals may be highly motivated to remain in an area despite negative 
impacts (e.g., Rolland et al. 2012). Previous monitoring data indicates 
beluga whales are responding to pile driving noise but not through 
abandonment of critical habitat, including primary foraging areas north 
of the port. Instead, they travel faster past the POA, more quietly, 
and in tighter groups (which may be linked to the decreased 
communication patterns). We anticipate these behaviors to continue; 
however, do not believe they had adverse effects on reproduction or 
survival as the whales continue to access critical foraging grounds 
north of the POA and tight associations combat any communication space 
lost within a group. Finally, as described previously, beluga whales 
likely stay in upper Knik Arm for several days before exiting Knik Arm. 
Acoustic data indicate beluga whales move through lower Knik Arm 
relatively quickly, when entering or exiting the arm, and remain in the 
upper arm for several days, or weeks, before moving back out into Cook 
Inlet (Castellote et al., in press). Satellite telemetry data indicate 
such a movement pattern may be common. Specifically, a beluga 
instrumented with a satellite link time/depth recorder entered Knik Arm 
on August 18th and remained in Eagle Bay until September 12th (Ferrero 
et al. 2000). This longer-term use of upper Knik Arm would avoid 
repetitive exposures from pile driving noise.
    NMFS has included mitigation measures beyond those proposed by the 
POA in the IHA application, specifically, not commencing pile driving 
if beluga whales are observed within Knik Arm or within 1 km of the 
mouth of Knik Arm, shutting down pile driving should a beluga whale 
approach or enter the Level B harassment zone, stationing PSOs at Point 
Woronzof, and not vibratory pile driving 144-in piles during August 
(peak beluga season). These measures are designed to ensure beluga 
whales will not abandon critical habitat and exposure to pile driving

[[Page 72183]]

noise will not result in adverse impacts on the reproduction or 
survival of any individuals. The location of PSOs at Point Woronzof 
allows for detection of beluga whales at much farther distances than 
previous years and behavioral observations prior to whales entering 
Knik Arm. Although NMFS does not anticipate beluga whales would abandon 
entering Knik Arm in the presence of pile driving with the proposed 
mitigation measures, these PSOs will be integral to identifying if 
belugas are potentially altering pathways they would otherwise take in 
the absence of pile driving. Because the POA is submitting weekly and 
monthly reports, NMFS will be able to regularly evaluate the impacts of 
the project on beluga whales. Finally, take by mortality, serious 
injury, or Level A harassment of CIBWs is not anticipated or proposed 
to be authorized.
    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 CIBWs through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or 
authorized.
     Area of exposure would be limited to travel corridors. 
Data demonstrates Level B harassment manifests as increased swim speeds 
past the POA and tight group formations and not through habitat 
abandonment.
     No critical foraging grounds (e.g. Eagle Bay, Eagle River, 
Susitna Delta) would be impacted by pile driving.
     While animals could be harassed more than once, exposures 
are not likely to exceed more than a few per year for any given 
individual and are not expected to occur on sequential days; thereby, 
decreasing the likelihood of physiological impacts caused by chronic 
stress or masking.
    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 Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (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.
    For all stocks, the amount of taking is small relative to the 
population size (0.2 to 17 percent). Further, the amount of take 
proposed to be authorized likely represents smaller numbers of 
individual harbor seals and Steller sea lions. Harbor seals tend to 
concentrate near Ship Creek and have small home ranges; therefore, the 
amount of take authorized likely represents repeat exposures to the 
same animals. Previous Steller sea lion sightings identified that if a 
Steller sea lion is within Knik Arm, it is likely lingering to forage 
on salmon or eulachon runs and may be present for several days. With 
respect to CIBW, they are known to enter Knik Arm and then exit after 
several days of remaining within Knik Arm. There is potential an 
individual is taken on both ingress and egress; however, due to the 
mitigation measures (essentially takes are for animals where pile 
driving cannot be shut down before exposure), the circumstances would 
have to be such that pile driving is occurring while the whale is both 
entering and exiting Knik Arm and that the animal is missed or taken 
due to logistical constraints of shutting down pile driving immediately 
in both cases. Therefore, the potential for repeat takes is low and we 
anticipate take predominantly represents individual animals. 
Regardless, the amount of take proposed to be authorized for CIBW is 
small (17 percent or less).
    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 
sizes 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. No subsistence use 
of CIBWs occurs and subsistence harvest of other marine mammals is 
limited. The potential impacts from harassment on stocks that are 
harvested would be limited to minor behavioral changes (e.g., increased 
swim speeds, changes in dive time, temporary avoidance near the POA, 
etc.) within the vicinity of the POA. Therefore, NMFS has determined 
that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or 
stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to the POA for the PCT Project, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are 
incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

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 POA's PCT 
Project. 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 one-year IHA renewal with 
an expedited public comment period (15 days) when (1) another year of 
identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified 
Activities

[[Page 72184]]

section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the 
time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, 
provided all of the following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the 
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed 
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, 
or mitigation and monitoring requirements.
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
     Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, 
and the original findings remain valid.

    Dated: December 20, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-28102 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P