Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seabird Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 2014, 32226-32237 [2014-12904]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32226-32237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RIN 0648-XD174]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Seabird Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 
2014

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

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from Glacier Bay National 
Park (Glacier Bay NP) to take marine mammals, by harassment incidental 
to conducting seabird research from July through September, 2014. The 
proposed dates for this action would be July 22, 2014 through September 
30, 2014. Per the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we are requesting 
comments on our proposal to issue an Authorization to the Glacier Bay 
NP to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, one species of 
marine mammals during the specified activity.

DATES: NMFS must receive comments and information on or before July 7, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, 
Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for 
providing email comments is ITP.Cody@noaa.gov. Please include 0648-
XD174 in the subject line. Comments sent via email to 
ITP.Cody@noaa.gov, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-
megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to 
addresses other than the one provided here.
    Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public 
record and NMFS will post them to https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    To obtain an electronic copy of the application containing a list 
of the references used in this document, write to the previously 
mentioned address, telephone the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visit the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
    We will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate the environmental 
effects related to the scope of our federal action, which is the 
proposed issuance of an Authorization to Glacier Bay NP for their 
proposed seabird research activities. This notice presents detailed 
information on the scope of our federal action under NEPA (i.e., the 
proposed Authorization including mitigation measures and monitoring) 
and we will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as 
we prepare our EA. Information in Glacier Bay NP's application and this 
notice collectively provide the environmental information related to 
proposed issuance of the Authorization for public review and comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 
as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of 
Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, 
taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population 
stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after 
NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for 
review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking 
is limited to harassment.
    An Authorization shall be granted for the incidental taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals 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 subsistence uses (where relevant). The Authorization must 
also set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of 
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock 
and its habitat; and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. NMFS has defined ``negligible 
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``an impact resulting from

[[Page 32227]]

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.''
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

    On April 7, 2014, NMFS received an application from Glacier Bay NP 
requesting that we issue an Authorization for the take of marine 
mammals, incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on 
glaucus-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) within Glacier Bay National 
Park and Preserve in Alaska. NMFS determined the application complete 
and adequate on May 1, 2014.
    Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct ground-based and vessel-based 
surveys to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting gulls 
within five study sites in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP proposes to 
complete up to five visits per study site, from July through September, 
2014.
    The proposed activities are within the vicinity of pinniped haulout 
sites and the following aspects of the proposed activities are likely 
to result in the take of marine mammals: Noise generated by motorboat 
approaches and departures; noise generated by researchers while 
conducting ground surveys; and human presence during the monitoring and 
research activities. Thus, we anticipate that take, by Level B 
harassment only of one species of marine mammal could result from the 
specified activity. NMFS anticipates that take by Level B Harassment 
only, of individuals of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) would result from 
the specified activity.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    Glacier Bay NP proposes to identify the onset of gull nesting; 
conduct mid-season surveys of adult gulls, and locate and document gull 
nest sites within the following study areas: Boulder, Lone, and 
Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Each of these study sites contains 
harbor seal haulout sites and Glacier Bay NP proposes to visit each 
site up to five times during the research season.
    Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull monitoring studies to meet the 
requirements of a 2010 Record of Decision for a Legislative 
Environmental Impact Statement (NPS 2010) which states that Glacier Bay 
NP must initiate a monitoring program for the gulls to inform future 
native egg harvests by the Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier 
Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting sites to 
assess population trends over time (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; 
Womble et al., 2010). Glacier Bay NP also coordinates pinniped 
monitoring programs with National Marine Mammal Laboratory and the 
Alaska Department of Fish & Game and plans to continue these 
collaborations and sharing of monitoring data and observations in the 
future.

Dates and Duration

    Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct the proposed activities from the 
period of July 22 through September 30, 2014. Glacier Bay NP proposes 
to conduct a maximum of three ground-based surveys per each study site 
between July 22 through September 30, 2014 and a maximum of two vessel-
based surveys per each study site between July 22 through September 30, 
2014.
    Thus, the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective 
from July 22, 2014 through September 30, 2014. We refer the reader to 
the Detailed Description of Activities section later in this notice for 
more information on the scope of the proposed activities.

Specified Geographic Region

    The proposed study sites would occur in the vicinity of the 
following locations: Boulder (58[deg]33'18.08'' N; 136[deg]1'13.36'' 
W), Lone (58[deg]43'17.67'' N; 136[deg]17'41.32'' W), and Flapjack 
(58[deg]35'10.19'' N; 135[deg]58'50.78'' W) Islands, and Geikie Rock 
(58[deg]41'39.75'' N; 136[deg]18'39.06'' W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. 
Glacier Bay NP will also conduct studies at Tlingit Point Islet located 
at 58[deg]45'16.86'' N; 136[deg]10'41.74'' W; however, there are no 
reported pinniped haulout sites at that location.

[[Page 32228]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04JN14.019

Detailed Description of Activities

    Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct: (1) Ground-based surveys at a 
maximum frequency of three visits per site; and (2) vessel-based 
surveys at a maximum frequency of two visits per site from the period 
of July 22 through September 30, 2014.
    Ground-Based Surveys: These surveys involve two trained observers 
visiting the largest gull colony on each island to: (1) Obtain 
information on the numbers of nests, their location, and contents 
(i.e., eggs or chicks); (2) determine the onset of laying, 
distribution, abundance, and predation of gull nests and eggs; and (3) 
record the proximity of other species relative to colony locations.
    The observers would access each island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 
39.4-foot (ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 12 ft (4 m) 
inflatable rowing dinghy. The landing craft's transit speed would not 
exceed 4 knots (4.6 miles per hour (mph). Ground surveys generally last 
from 30 minutes to up to two hours depending on the size of the island 
and the number of nesting gulls. Glacier Bay NP will discontinue ground 
surveys after they detect the first hatchling to minimize disturbance 
to the gull colonies.
    Vessel-Based Surveys: These surveys involve two trained observers 
observing and counting the number of adult and fledgling gulls from the 
deck of a motorized vessel which would transit around each island at a 
distance of approximately 328 ft (100 m) to avoid

[[Page 32229]]

flushing the birds from the colonies. Vessel-based surveys generally 
last from 30 minutes to up to two hours depending on the size of the 
island and the number of nesting gulls.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
    Table 1 in this notice provides the following information: All 
marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the 
proposed survey areas on land; information on those species' regulatory 
status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.); abundance; occurrence and seasonality in the activity 
area.

       Table 1--General Information on Marine Mammals That Could Potentially Haul Out in the Proposed Study Areas in July Through September, 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Regulatory status \1     Stock/species
               Species                      Stock name                  2\              abundance \3\     Occurrence and range            Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)........  Glacier Bay/Icy Strait  MMPA-NC ESA--NL.......              5,042  common coastal........  year-round
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias          Eastern U.S...........  MMPA--D, S ESA--NL....      63,160-78,198  uncommon coastal......  year-round
 jubatus).
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias          Western U.S...........  MMPA--D, S ESA--T.....             52,200  rare coastal..........  unknown
 jubatus).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified.
\2\ ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed.
\3\ 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Allen and Anglis, 2013).

    NMFS refers the public to the Glacier Bay NP's application and the 
2013 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report available online at: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm for further information on 
the biology and local distribution of these species.
Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed Action Area
    Northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) and polar bears (Ursis 
maritimus) listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act could 
occur in the proposed area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 
these species and we do not consider them further in this notice.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the 
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., 
motorboat operations and the presence of researchers) impact marine 
mammals (via observations or scientific studies). This section may 
include a discussion of known effects that do not rise to the level of 
an MMPA take (for example, with visual stimuli, we may include a 
discussion of studies of animals exhibiting no reaction to sound or 
exhibiting barely perceptible avoidance behaviors). This discussion may 
also include reactions that NMFS considers to rise to the level of a 
take.
    NMFS intends to provide a background of potential effects of 
Glacier Bay NP's activities in this section. This section does not 
consider the specific manner in which the Glacier Bay NP would carry 
out the proposed activity, what mitigation measures the Glacier Bay NP 
would implement, and how either of those would shape the anticipated 
impacts from this specific activity. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section later in this document will include a quantitative 
analysis of the number of individuals that we expect Glacier Bay NP to 
take during this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section 
will include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact 
marine mammals. NMFS will consider the content of the following 
sections: (1) Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment; (3) Proposed 
Mitigation; and (4) Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, to 
draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals--and from that 
consideration--the likely impacts of this activity on the affected 
marine mammal populations or stocks.

Acoustic Impacts

    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Current 
data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing 
capabilities (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 1997; Wartzok 
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
    Southall et al. (2007) designated ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals based on available behavioral data; audiograms derived 
from auditory evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; and other data. 
Southall et al. (2007) also estimated the lower and upper frequencies 
of functional hearing for each group. However, animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of their functional hearing 
range and are more sensitive to a range of frequencies within the 
middle of their functional hearing range.
    The functional groups applicable to this proposed survey and the 
associated frequencies are:
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
Functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) 
and 30 kHz (extended from 22 kHz based on data indicating that some 
mysticetes can hear above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 
2007; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): Functional hearing estimates occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing estimates occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in water: Phocid (true seals) functional hearing 
estimates occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz (Hemila et al., 
2006; Mulsow et al., 2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and otariid (seals 
and sea lions) functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 
100 Hz to 40 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, only one marine mammal 
species would likely occur in the proposed action area. The harbor seal 
is a member of the Pinnipeds in Water functional hearing group. We 
consider a species' functional hearing group when

[[Page 32230]]

we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.

1. Potential Effects of Motorboat Operations and Researcher Presence on 
Marine Mammals

    Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Motorboat operations; 
and (2) the appearance of researchers may have the potential to cause 
Level B harassment of any pinnipeds hauled out on Boulder, Lone, and 
Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. The effects of sounds from motorboat 
operations and the appearance of researchers might include hearing 
impairment or behavioral disturbance (Southall, et al., 2007).

Hearing Impairment

    Marine mammals produce sounds in various important contexts--social 
interactions, foraging, navigating, and responding to predators. The 
best available science suggests that pinnipeds have a functional aerial 
hearing sensitivity between 75 hertz (Hz) and 75 kilohertz (kHz) and 
can produce a diversity of sounds, though generally from 100 Hz to 
several tens of kHz (Southall, et al., 2007).
    Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may 
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift--an 
increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran, 
Carder, Schlundt, and Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence the amount 
of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, 
temporal pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The 
magnitude of hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time 
following cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of threshold 
shift just after exposure is called the initial threshold shift. If the 
threshold shift eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns 
to the pre-exposure value), it is called temporary threshold shift 
(Southall et al., 2007).
    Pinnipeds have the potential to be disturbed by airborne and 
underwater noise generated by the small boats equipped with outboard 
engines (Richardson, Greene, Malme, and Thomson, 1995). However, there 
is a dearth of information on acoustic effects of motorboats on 
pinniped hearing and communication and to our knowledge there has been 
no specific documentation of hearing impairment in free-ranging 
pinnipeds exposed to small motorboats during realistic field 
conditions.

Behavioral Disturbance

    Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to 
anthropogenic noise. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, 
including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and 
displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of 
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of 
day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 
2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). These behavioral 
reactions are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and 
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; 
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain 
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle 
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw 
clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or 
flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into the water from haul-
outs or rookeries). 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).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, one could expect the consequences 
of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change 
affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction. Some of these 
significant behavioral modifications include:
     Change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought 
to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-
frequency tactical sonar);
     Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
     Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Richardson et 
al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007). Given the many uncertainties in 
predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine 
mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals would be 
present within a particular distance of industrial activities and/or 
exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. In most cases, this 
approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that could 
potentially be affected in some biologically-important manner.
    Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and 
long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf et al., 1981; Schneider 
and Payne, 1983; Terhune and Almon, 1983; Allen et al., 1984; Stewart, 
1984; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; Mortenson et al., 2000; and Kucey and 
Trites, 2006). Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including 
subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. 
Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, 
experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many 
other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 
et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). 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).
    Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush harbor 
seals off haulout sites (Allen et al., 1984; Calambokidis et al., 1991; 
Suryan and Harvey, 1999; and Mortenson et al., 2000). The Hawaiian monk 
seal (Monachus schauinslandi) has been shown to avoid beaches that have 
been disturbed often by humans (Kenyon, 1972). And in one case, human 
disturbance appeared to cause Steller sea lions to desert a breeding 
area at Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, Alaska (Kenyon, 1962).
    In cases where vessels actively approached marine mammals (e.g., 
whale watching or dolphin watching boats), scientists have documented 
that animals exhibit altered behavior such as increased swimming speed, 
erratic movement, and active avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 
1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams et 
al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow interval (Ritcher et 
al., 2003), disruption of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, 2003; 
2006), and the shift of behavioral activities which may increase 
energetic costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004)).
    In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the 
impacts of small boats (i.e., kayaks, canoes, motorboats and sailboats) 
on harbor seal haulout behavior in M[eacute]tis Bay, Quebec, Canada. 
During that study, the authors noted that the most frequent 
disturbances (n=73) were caused by lower speed, lingering kayaks and

[[Page 32231]]

canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to motorboats (27.8 percent) 
conducting high speed passes. The seal's flight reactions could be 
linked to a surprise factor by kayaks-canoes which approach slowly, 
quietly and low on water making them look like predators. However, the 
authors note that once the animals were disturbed, there did not appear 
to be any significant lingering effect on the recovery of numbers to 
their pre-disturbance levels. In conclusion, the study showed that boat 
traffic at current levels has only a temporary effect on the haulout 
behavior of harbor seals in the M[eacute]tis Bay area.
    In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the 
efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout 
sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum 
distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the 
vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During 
the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-
related disturbances which were associated with stopped powerboats and 
kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active 
and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and 
powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) 
respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by 
passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), 
possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief 
presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on 
average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned 
to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers 
did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the 
disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study 
concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and 
the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area 
counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site 
abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007). As a general 
statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense 
(approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 20 [mu]Pa) non-pulse sounds 
often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few 
hours) in the water (Southall et al., 2007).
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
    We do not anticipate that the proposed operations would result in 
any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine 
mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use 
(i.e., fish and invertebrates). While NMFS anticipates that the 
specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas 
due to motorboat operations or human presence, this impact to habitat 
is temporary and reversible. NMFS considered these as behavioral 
modification. The main impact associated with the proposed activity 
will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct 
effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Based 
on the preceding discussion, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed 
activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
their populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization 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 adverse 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 (where relevant).
    The Glacier Bay NP has reviewed the following source documents and 
has incorporated a suite of proposed mitigation measures into their 
project description.
    (1) Recommended best practices in Womble et al. (2013); Richardson 
et al. (1995); Pierson et al. (1998); and Weir and Dolman, (2007).
    To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual 
stimuli associated with the activities Glacier Bay NP and/or its 
designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures 
for marine mammals:
     Perform pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a 
study site;
     Avoid accessing a site based on a pre-determined threshold 
of animals present; sites used by pinnipeds for pupping; or sites used 
by Steller sea lions;
     Perform controlled and slow ingress to the study site to 
prevent a stampede and select a pathway of approach to minimize the 
number of marine mammals harassed;
     Monitor for offshore predators. Avoid approaching the 
study site if killer whales (Orcinas orca) are present. If Glacier Bay 
and/or its designees see predators in the area, they must not disturb 
the animals until the area is free of predators.
     Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual 
presence of pinnipeds.
    Pre-Survey Monitoring: Prior to deciding to land onshore to conduct 
the study, the researchers would use high-powered image stabilizing 
binoculars from the watercraft to document the number, species, and 
location of hauled out marine mammals at each island. The vessels would 
maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the 
shoreline to allow the researchers to conduct pre-survey monitoring.
    Site Avoidance: Researchers would decide whether or not to approach 
the island based on the species present, number of individuals, and the 
presence of pups. If there are high numbers (greater than 25) of hauled 
out harbor seals and/or young pups or there are any Steller sea lions 
present, the researchers will not approach the island and will not 
conduct gull monitoring research.
    Controlled Landings: The researchers would determine whether to 
approach the island based on the number and type of animals present. If 
the island has fewer than 25 individuals without pups, he/she would 
approach the island by motorboat at a speed of approximately 2 to 3 
knots (2.3 to 3.4 mph). This would provide enough time for any marine 
mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic or stampede. 
The researchers would also select a pathway of approach farthest from 
the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.
    Minimize Predator Interactions: If marine predators (i.e. killer 
whales) are present in the vicinity of hauled out marine mammals, the 
researchers would not approach the study site.
    Noise Reduction Protocols: While onshore at study sites, the 
researchers would remain vigilant for hauled out marine mammals. If 
marine mammals are present, the researchers would move slowly and use 
quiet voices to minimize disturbance to the animals present.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated Glacier Bay NP's proposed mitigation 
measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal 
species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential

[[Page 32232]]

measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to 
one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed here:
    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to motorboat 
operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of 
marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing 
harassment takes only).
    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals exposed to 
motorboat operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the 
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing harassment takes only).
    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to motorboat 
operations or visual presence that we expect to result in the take of 
marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing 
the severity of harassment takes only).
    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on the evaluation of Glacier Bay NP's proposed measures, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures 
provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine 
mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention 
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring

    In order to issue an ITA 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 we expect to be present in the 
proposed action area.
    Glacier Bay NP submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 
13 of their Authorization application. NMFS or the Glacier Bay NP may 
modify or supplement the plan based on comments or new information 
received from the public during the public comment period.
    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or 
more of the following general goals:
    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals in 
order to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned 
later;
    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals 
would be affected by the research activities and the likelihood of 
associating those exposures with specific adverse effects, such as 
behavioral harassment, temporary or permanent threshold shift;
    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to acoustic and visual stimuli that we expect to result in take and how 
those anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and 
to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock 
(specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival) through any of the following methods:
    a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to 
observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared 
to observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with 
concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain 
mitigation and monitoring measures.
    As part of its Authorization application, Glacier Bay NP proposes 
to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the present project, in 
order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time 
monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the 
Authorization.
    The Glacier Bay NP researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds 
during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of 
conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity 
of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide 
dates and location of the researcher's activities and the number and 
type of species present. The researchers would document the behavioral 
state of animals present, and any apparent disturbance reactions or 
lack thereof.

Proposed Reporting

    Glacier Bay NP will submit a final monitoring report to us no later 
than 90 days after the expiration of the Incidental Harassment 
Authorization, if we issue it. The final report will describe the 
operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed 
project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, 
results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The final 
report will provide:
    1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all 
research activities.
    2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals 
observed throughout all monitoring activities.
    3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed 
to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities.
    4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the 
monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full 
documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all 
monitoring.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the 
authorization, such as

[[Page 32233]]

an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., 
vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), Glacier Bay NP shall immediately cease 
the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the 
Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to 
Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@noaa.gov and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 (Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov). The 
report must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Description and location of the incident (including water 
depth, if applicable);
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able 
to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with 
Glacier Bay to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood 
of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP 
may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, 
or telephone.
    In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the 
injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in 
less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next 
paragraph), Glacier Bay NP will immediately report the incident to the 
Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to 
Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@noaa.gov and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 (Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov). The 
report must include the same information identified in the paragraph 
above this section. Activities may continue while we review the 
circumstances of the incident. We will work with Glacier Bay NP to 
determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury 
or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Glacier Bay will report the 
incident to the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 
ITP.Cody@noaa.gov and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at 
(907) 586-7248 (Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov) within 24 hours of the 
discovery. Glacier Bay NP researchers will provide photographs or video 
footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal 
sighting to us. Glacier Bay NP can continue their research activities.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].
    Acoustic (i.e., increased sound) and visual stimuli from the 
proposed research activities may have the potential to result in the 
behavioral disturbance of some marine mammals. Thus, NMFS proposes to 
authorize take by Level B harassment only for the proposed seabird 
research activities on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie 
Rock, Alaska. NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level B harassment 
based upon the current acoustic exposure criteria shown in Table 2. Our 
practice has been to apply the 120 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa received level 
threshold for underwater continuous sound levels to determine whether 
take by Level B harassment occurs. Southall et al. (2007) provides a 
severity scale for ranking observed behavioral responses of both free-
ranging marine mammals and laboratory subjects to various types of 
anthropogenic sound (see Table 4 in Southall et al. [2007]).

            Table 2--NMFS' Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criterion           Criterion definition        Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury).  Permanent Threshold   180 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Shift (PTS) (Any      m (cetaceans)/190
                               level above that      dB re 1 microPa-m
                               which is known to     (pinnipeds) root
                               cause TTS).           mean square (rms).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            120 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Disruption (for       m (rms)
                               continuous noises).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on pinniped survey counts conducted by Glacier Bay NP (e.g., 
Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble et al., 2010), NMFS estimates that 
the research activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral 
harassment 400 harbor seals over the course of the Authorization (Table 
3). This estimate represents 12.6 percent of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait 
stock of harbor seals and accounts for a maximum disturbance of 20 
harbor seals each per visit at Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and 
Geikie Rock, Alaska over a maximum level of five visits.

 Table 3--Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to Acoustic and Visual Stimuli During the
   Proposed Research Activities on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock, Alaska, July Through
                                                 September, 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Est. number of                    Percent of
           Species                 Density        individuals    Proposed take    species or    Population trend
                                 estimate \1\       exposed      authorization     stock \2\           \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................  No data........             400             400            12.6  Declining

[[Page 32234]]

 
Steller sea lion.............  No data........               0               0               0  Increasing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No data = Insufficient data to determine density estimates for Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and
  Geikie Rock.
\2\ Table 1 in this notice lists the stock species abundance estimates that NMFS used to calculate the
  percentage of species/stock.
\3\ The population trend information is from Allen and Angliss, 2013. No data = Insufficient data to determine
  population trend.

    Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers (on average, less 
than 50 animals) at most sites with the exception of Flapjack Island. 
Animals on Flapjack Boulder Islands generally haul out on the south 
side of the Islands and are not located near the research sites located 
on the northern side of the Islands. Aerial survey maximum counts show 
that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four 
locations (see Table 2 in Glacier Bays NP's application), and sometimes 
individuals and mother/pup pairs occupy different terrestrial locations 
than the main haulout (J. Womble, personal observation).
    Considering the conservation status for the Western stock of the 
Steller sea lion, the Glacier Bay NP researchers would not conduct 
ground-based or vessel-based surveys if they observe Steller sea lions 
before accessing Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. 
Thus, NMFS expects no takes to occur for this species during the 
proposed activities.
    The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (i.e., 
motorboat strike) occurring during the proposed research activities is 
unlikely due to the motorboat's slow operational speed, which is 
typically 2 to 3 knots (2.3 to 3.4 mph) and the researchers continually 
scanning the water for marine mammals presence during transit to the 
islands. Thus, NMFS does not anticipate that take would result from the 
movement of the motorboat.
    There is no evidence that Glacier Bay NP's planned activities could 
result in injury, serious injury, or mortality within the action area. 
Moreover, the required mitigation and monitoring measures would 
minimize further any potential risk for injury, serious injury, or 
mortality. Thus, we do not propose to authorize any injury, serious 
injury, or mortality. We expect all potential takes to fall under the 
category of Level B harassment only.

Encouraging and Coordinating Research

    Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and 
molting haul out locations to assess trends over time (e.g., Mathews & 
Pendleton, 2006; Womble et al. 2010, Womble and Gende, 2013b). This 
monitoring program involves collaborations with biologists from the 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory. Glacier Bay NP will continue these collaborations and 
encourage continued or renewed monitoring of marine mammal species. 
Additionally, they would report vessel-based counts of marine mammals, 
branded, or injured animals, and all observed disturbances to the 
appropriate state and federal agencies.

Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``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). The lack of 
likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival 
(i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact 
finding. Thus, an estimate of the number of Level B harassment 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 behavioral harassment, 
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any 
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as 
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, 
and the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the 
status of the species.
    In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers:
     The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or 
mortalities;
     The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B 
harassment; and
     The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to 
areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative 
impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions 
when added to baseline data);
     The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., 
depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative 
to the size of the population);
     Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/
survival; and
     The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to 
reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
    For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the 
following factors, Glacier Bay NP's specified activities are not likely 
to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, permanent threshold shift, 
or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death. These reasons 
include:
    1. The effects of the research activities would be limited to 
short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to 
the short and sporadic duration of the research activities. Minor and 
brief responses, such as short-duration startle or alert reactions, are 
not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as 
migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
    2. The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid the 
resultant acoustic and visual disturbances from the research 
operations. Anecdotal reports from previous Glacier Bay NP activities 
have shown that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not 
permanently abandon haul-out sites after Glacier Bay NP conducted their 
research activities.
    3. There is no potential for large-scale movements leading to 
injury, serious injury, or mortality because the researchers would 
delay ingress into the landing areas only after the pinnipeds have 
slowly entered the water.

[[Page 32235]]

    4. Glacier Bay NP limiting access to Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack 
Islands, and Geikie Rock if more than 25 animals are present or if 
Steller sea lions are present in the research areas.
    NMFS does not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or 
mortalities would occur as a result of Glacier Bay's proposed 
activities, and NMFS does not propose to authorize injury, serious 
injury, or mortality at this time.
    Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) 
harassment anticipated and described (see ``Potential Effects on Marine 
Mammals'' section in this notice), we do not expect the activity to 
impact rates of recruitment or survival for any affected species or 
stock. In addition, the research activities would not take place in 
areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or 
calving and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.
    NMFS preliminary finds that Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities 
will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks based 
on the analysis contained in this notice of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures.

Small Numbers

    As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Glacier Bay NP's 
activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one 
species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this 
estimate is small (12.6 percent) relative to the population size and we 
have provided the percentage of the harbor seal's regional population 
estimate that the activities may take by Level B harassment in Table 3 
in this notice.
    Based on the analysis contained in this notice of the likely 
effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, 
and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and 
monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that Glacier Bay NP's 
proposed activities would take small numbers of marine mammals relative 
to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for 
Subsistence Uses
    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Glacier Bay National Park prohibits subsistence harvest 
of harbor seals within the Park (Catton, 1995).

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    NMFS does not expect that Glacier Bay NP's proposed research 
activities would affect any species listed under the ESA. Therefore, 
NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not 
required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    To meet our NEPA requirements for the issuance of an Authorization 
to Glacier Bay NP, we intend to prepare an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) titled, ``Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization to Take Marine Mammals by 
Harassment Incidental to Conducting Seabird Research in Glacier Bay 
Alaska.'' Prior to making a final decision on the issuance of an 
Authorization, we would decide whether or not to issue a Finding of No 
Significant Impact. NMFS will review all comments submitted in response 
to this notice to complete the NEPA process prior to making a final 
decision on the Authorization request.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes 
issuing an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Glacier Bay National 
Park for conducting seabird research July 22, 2014 through September 
30, 2014, provided they incorporate the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

Draft Proposed Authorization

    This section contains the draft text for the proposed 
Authorization. NMFS proposes to include this language in the 
Authorization if issued.

Proposed Authorization Language

    Glacier Bay National Park, P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska 99826 
and/or its designees (holders of the Authorization) are hereby 
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass small numbers of marine mammals 
incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucus-
winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) within Glacier Bay National Park and 
Preserve in Alaska.
    1. This Authorization is valid from July 22 through September 30, 
2014.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for research activities that 
would occur in the following specified geographic areas: Boulder 
(58[deg]33'18.08'' N; 136[deg]1'13.36'' W); Lone (58[deg]43'17.67'' N; 
136[deg] 17'41.32'' W), and Flapjack (58[deg]35'10.19'' N; 
135[deg]58'50.78'' W) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58[deg]41'39.75'' N; 
136[deg]18'39.06'' W); and Tlingit Point Islet (58[deg]45'16.86'' N; 
136[deg]10'41.74'' W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska.
3. Species Authorized and Level of Takes
    a. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the 
following species: 400 Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina).
    b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or 
death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of 
any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may 
result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this 
Authorization.
    c. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under 
this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 
(301) 427-8401.
4. General Conditions
    A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of Glacier 
Bay National Park, its designees, and field crew personnel (including 
research collaborators) operating under the authority of this 
Authorization at all times.
5. Mitigation Measures
    In order to ensure the least practicable impact on the species 
listed in condition 3(a), the Holder of this Authorization is required 
to:
    a. Conduct pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study 
site. Prior to deciding to land onshore of Boulder, Lone, or Flapjack 
Island or Geikie Rock, the Holder of this Authorization will use high-
powered image stabilizing binoculars to document the number, species, 
and location of hauled out marine mammals at each island. The vessels 
will maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the 
shoreline.
    i. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that there are 
greater than or equal to 25 harbor seals hauled out on the shoreline, 
the holder will not access the island and will not conduct the study at 
that time.
    ii. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that Steller sea 
lions (Eumetopias jubatus) are present at the study site, the holder 
will not access the island and will not conduct the study at that time.
    iii. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that there are 
greater than or equal to 25 harbor seal pups hauled out on the 
shoreline, the holder will not access the island and will not conduct 
the study at that time.

[[Page 32236]]

    b. Minimize the potential for disturbance (to the lowest level 
practicable near known pinniped haul outs by boat travel and pedestrian 
approach during research activities) by: (1) performing controlled and 
slow ingress to the study site to prevent a stampede; and (2) selecting 
a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to 
minimize disturbance.
    c. Monitor for offshore predators. Avoid approaching the study site 
if killer whales (Orcinas orca) are present. If the Holder of this 
Authorization observes predators in the area, they must not disturb the 
animals until the area is free of predators.
    d. Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of 
pinnipeds.
6. Monitoring
    The holder of this Authorization is required to:
    a. Record the date, time, and location (or closest point of 
ingress) of each visit to the research site.
    b. Collect the following information for each visit:
    i. composition of the marine mammals sighted, such as species, 
gender and life history stage (e.g., adult, sub-adult, pup);
    ii. information on the numbers (by species) of marine mammals 
observed during the activities;
    iii. the estimated number of marine mammals (by species) that may 
have been harassed during the activities;
    iv. any behavioral responses or modifications of behaviors that may 
be attributed to the specific activities and a description of the 
specific activities occurring during that time (e.g., pedestrian 
approach, vessel approach); and
    v. information on the weather, including the tidal state and 
horizontal visibility.
    c. Observers will record marine mammal behavior patterns observed 
before, during, and after the activities; in the following manner:
    i. Flushing into the water;
    ii. stampeding into water;
    iii. moving more than 1 meter (m), but not in the water; becoming 
alert and moving, but did not move more than 1 meter; or
    v. changing the direction of current movement.
    d. If applicable, note observations of marked or tag-bearing 
pinnipeds or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of 
marine mammal.
    e. If applicable, note the presence of any offshore predators 
(date, time, number, species).
7. Reporting
    The holder of this Authorization is required to:
    a. Draft Report: Submit a draft final report to the Chief, Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, Headquarters, 
NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the Authorization. The 
report will include the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring 
requirements listed in Condition 6, along with an executive summary.
    b. The Draft Report shall be subject to review and comment by NMFS. 
Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the Final Report 
prior to submission to NMFS. If we decide that the draft final report 
needs no comments, the draft final report will be considered to be the 
final report.
    c. Final Report: Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, Headquarters, 
NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from us on the draft final 
report.
    8. Reporting Prohibited Take
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the 
authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, 
or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), Glacier Bay 
National Park shall immediately cease the specified activities and 
immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program 
Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to 
Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@noaa.gov and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 (Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov). The 
report must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Description and location of the incident (including water 
depth, if applicable);
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Glacier Bay National Park shall not resume its activities until 
NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We 
will work with Glacier Bay National Park to determine what is necessary 
to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA 
compliance. Glacier Bay National Park may not resume their activities 
until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
9. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal With an Unknown Cause of 
Death
    In the event that Glacier Bay National Park discovers an injured or 
dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause 
of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent 
(i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in 
the next paragraph), Glacier Bay National Park will immediately report 
the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-
8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@noaa.gov 
and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 
(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov). The report must include the same information 
identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue 
while we review the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with 
Glacier Bay National Park to determine whether modifications in the 
activities are appropriate.
10. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal not Related to Glacier 
Bay National Park's Activities
    In the event that Glacier Bay National Park discovers an injured or 
dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the 
injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized 
activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to 
advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Glacier Bay will report 
the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-
8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@noaa.gov 
and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 
(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov) within 24 hours of the discovery. Glacier Bay 
NP researchers will provide photographs or video footage (if available) 
or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. Glacier 
Bay National Park can continue their research activities.

[[Page 32237]]

Request for Public Comments

    NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, 
and any other aspect of the Notice of proposed Authorization for 
Glacier Bay National Park's activities. Please include any supporting 
data or literature citations with your comments to help inform our 
final decision on Glacier Bay National Park's request for an 
application.

    Dated: May 29, 2014.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12904 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P