Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Kodiak Transient Float Replacement Project, 79350-79375 [2016-27126]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79350-79375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27126]



[[Page 79349]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 218

November 10, 2016

Part V





 Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking 
Marine Mammals Incidental to the Kodiak Transient Float Replacement 
Project; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2016 / 
Notices

[[Page 79350]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

XRIN 0648-XE941


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Kodiak Transient Float 
Replacement Project

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

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the City of Kodiak Port 
and Harbors (the City) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) 
to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to the Kodiak 
transient float replacement project in Kodiak, Alaska. Pursuant to the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its 
proposal to issue an IHA to the City to incidentally take, by Level B 
Harassment only, marine mammals during the specified activity. The City 
requests that the IHA be valid for one year, from January 1, 2017 
through December 31, 2017. Pursuant to NEPA, NMFS is preparing an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will consider comments submitted in 
response to this notice as part of that process. The EA will be posted 
at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm once 
it is finalized.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than December 
12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Chief, 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.mccue@noaa.gov. Comments sent via email, including all 
attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not 
responsible for comments sent to addresses other than those provided 
here.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm 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.
    An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to 
the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/. The following associated 
documents are also available at the same internet address: Draft EA, 
Monitoring Plan. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by 
appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned 
address.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability

    An electronic copy of the City's application and supporting 
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, 
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing 
these documents, please call the contact listed above.

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    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 August 15, 2016, NMFS received an application from the City for 
the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Kodiak transient float 
replacement project in Kodiak, Alaska. On October 17, 2016 NMFS 
received a revised application with updated take numbers. NMFS 
determined that the application was adequate and complete on October 
21, 2016. Subsequent to NMFS accepting the application, changes were 
made to the injury zones, take numbers, and shutdown zones. The City 
provided a memo to NMFS on November 1, 2016 noting these changes.
    The City proposes to conduct in-water construction work (i.e., pile 
driving and removal) that may incidentally harass marine mammals. The 
proposed activity would occur from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 
2017, with restrictions on impact driving between May 1, 2017 and June 
30, 2017.
    Proposed activities included as part of the Kodiak transient float 
replacement project (transient float project) with the potential to 
take marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile-driving 
operations and use of a down-hole drill/hammer to install piles in 
bedrock. Take by Level B harassment of individuals of six species is 
anticipated to result from the specified activity.
    On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for 
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing 
(Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting 
auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. 
The transient float project used this new guidance when determining the 
injury (Level A) zones.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    The City proposes to replace its existing transient float located 
in Kodiak's Near Island Channel. The

[[Page 79351]]

purpose of this project is to replace the transient float with one that 
meets modern standards for vessel mooring and public safety for the 
next 50 years. The existing float has structural issues due to failing 
walers, stringers, and bullrails. Due to these structural problems, the 
float's capacity has been reduced. The existing float needs to be 
replaced due to its poor condition and reduced capacity. The proposed 
action includes in-water construction, including the removal of the 
existing timber float and its associated timber and steel piles, and 
installation of the replacement float and steel piles. The replacement 
float will be located within nearly the same footprint as the existing 
facility; however, the overall float length will be shortened to 
improve all around accessibility within City right-of-way limits.

Dates and Duration

    Pile installation and extraction associated with the Kodiak 
transient float replacement project is scheduled to begin in January 
2017 and end in March 2017. Pile installation and removal will take 
approximately 57 hours and is expected to take place over a period of 
12 days (not necessarily consecutive days). To minimize impacts to pink 
salmon fry (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and coho salmon smolt (O. kisutch), 
all in-water pile extraction and installation is planned to be 
completed by April 30, 2016. However, if work cannot be completed by 
that date, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has recommended 
that the City refrain from impact pile installation from May 1 through 
June 30 within the 12-hour period beginning daily at the start of civil 
dawn (Marie 2015). If impact pile-driving occurs from May 1 through 
June 30, it will occur in the evenings during daylight hours, after the 
end of the 12-hour period that begins at civil dawn.
    The 2.5-month long construction period accounts for the time 
required to mobilize materials and resources, remove and replace piles, 
remove the existing float, and install the new float, abutment, 
gangway, electrical components, and other safety features. The 2.5-
month long construction period also accounts for potential delays in 
material deliveries, equipment maintenance, inclement weather, and 
shutdowns that could occur if marine mammals come within disturbance 
zones associated with the project area. However, the City has requested 
an authorization for up to one year of construction activities in case 
unforeseen construction delays occur.
    Pile extraction, pile driving, and drilling will occur 
intermittently over the work period, from minutes to hours at a time 
(Table 1 in the City's application). The proposed transient float 
replacement project will require an estimated 12 days total of pile 
extraction and installation, including eight hours of vibratory 
extraction and installation, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less 
than one hour of impact hammering. Timing will vary based on the 
weather, delays, substrate type (the rock is layered and is of varying 
hardness across the site, so some holes will be drilled quickly and 
others may take longer), and other factors.

Specified Geographic Region

    The Kodiak transient float is located in the City of Kodiak, 
Alaska, at 57.788162[deg] N., -152.400287[deg] W., in Near Island 
Channel in the Gulf of Alaska (See Figures 1-3 in the City's 
Application). The transient float provides moorage for vessels from 
villages as well as from the commercial fishing fleet located in Near 
Island Channel, which separates downtown Kodiak from Near Island 
(Figure 1-2 in the City's application). The channel is approximately 
200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) wide and 15 m (50 ft) deep in the 
project area. In the project footprint, the shoreline along the 
Transient Float is heavily armored with riprap (see Figure 4 of the 
City's application) and impervious surfaces directly abut the shoreline 
adjacent to the float. The channel is located within Chiniak Bay which 
opens to the Gulf of Alaska.
    The proposed project is located in a busy industrial area (Figure 3 
of the City's application). Channel Side Services' seafood packing 
facility is located approximately 25 m (82 ft) east of the float and 
Petro Marine Services floating fuel dock is located approximately 20 m 
(66 ft) west of the float. Pier 1, the Alaska Marine Highway Ferry 
dock, is located 100 m (328 ft) southwest of the float and Trident 
Seafood's shore-based seafood processing plant is located approximately 
175 m (574 ft) to the southwest (See Figure 3 in the City's 
application). When in operation, Trident's plant receives numerous 
commercial fishing vessels daily for offloading and processing of 
catch.

Detailed Description of Activities

    The proposed action for this IHA request includes in-water 
construction, including the removal of the existing timber float and 
its associated steel piles (19 12-inch steel piles), and installation 
of the replacement float and steel piles (12 24-inch steel piles). The 
replacement float will be located within nearly the same footprint as 
the existing facility; however, the overall float length will be 
shortened to improve all around accessibility within City right-of-way 
limits. The proposed transient float project will require an estimated 
57 hours over 12 days total of pile extraction and installation, 
including approximately eight hours of vibratory extraction and 
installation, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less than one hour of 
impact hammering. In water construction activities are expected to 
occur over 2.5 months.
    While work is conducted in the water, anchored barges would be used 
to stage construction materials and equipment. The existing piles, 
fixed pier, float and gangway will be removed and disposed of properly 
and the new float will be installed.
    It is estimated that it will take 10 minutes of vibratory pile-
driving and four hours of down-hole drilling per pile for installation, 
and 20 minutes of vibratory pile-driving per pile for extraction. For 
the installation of 12 piles, this is an estimated two hours of total 
time using active vibratory equipment and 48 hours of total time using 
down-hole drilling. For the in-water extraction of 19 piles, this is an 
estimated 6.33 hours of total time using active vibratory equipment. 
Two piles would remain in place, and two piles to be removed are above 
the high tide line. No temporary piles are associated with this 
project.
    The 24-inch steel piles will be driven 3-4.6 m (10-15 ft) through 
sediment and drilled another 3 m (10 ft) into bedrock. The sequence for 
installing the 24-inch piles will begin with insertion through 
overlying sediment with a vibratory hammer for about eight minutes per 
pile. Next, a hole will be drilled in the underlying bedrock by using a 
down-hole drill. A down-hole drill is a drill bit that drills through 
the sediment and a pulse mechanism that functions at the bottom of the 
hole, using a pulsing bit to break up the harder materials or rock to 
allow removal of the fragments and insertion of the pile. The head 
extends so that the drilling takes place below the pile. Drill cuttings 
are expelled from the top of the pile as dust or mud. It is estimated 
that drilling piles through the layered bedrock will take about four 
hours per pile. Finally, the vibratory hammer will be used again to 
finish driving the piles into bedrock, for approximately two minutes 
per pile (Table 1).
    Although impact pile-driving is not expected for this project, the 
contractor may choose to impact proof the piles after down-hole 
drilling. In this case, two to five blows of an impact hammer would be 
used to confirm that piles are

[[Page 79352]]

set into bedrock, for an expected maximum time of three minutes of 
impact hammering per pile. When the impact hammer is employed for 
proofing, a pile cap or cushion will be placed between the impact 
hammer and the pile.

                                    Table 1--Estimated Number of Hours Proposed for Pile Extraction and Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Vibratory hammer         Down-hole drill          Impact hammer
                                                             Number of -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pile type, location, method                    piles     Number of               Number of               Number of
                                                                           piles       Hours       piles       Hours       piles       Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-inch Steel Existing Float Extraction...................          19          19        6.33           0           0           0           0
24-inch Steel Replacement Float Installation..............          12          12           2          12          48          12         0.6
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total hours in-water..................................  ..........  ..........        8.33  ..........          48  ..........         0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Marine waters near Kodiak Island support many species of marine 
mammals, including pinnipeds and cetaceans; however, the number of 
species regularly occurring near the project area is limited. Steller 
sea lions (Eumatopias jubatus) are the most common marine mammals in 
the project area and are part of the western Distinct Population 
Segment (wDPS) that is listed as endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA). Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoises 
(Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), killer 
whales (Orcinus orca), and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) may 
also occur in the project area, especially in the waters between Near 
Island Channel and Woody Island, but far less frequently and in lower 
abundance than Steller sea lions. Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) 
and grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus) occur in the nearshore waters 
around Kodiak Island, but are not expected to be found near the project 
area because of the narrow channel and high level of boat traffic. The 
relatively large numbers of Steller sea lions in the area may serve as 
an additional deterrent for some marine mammals. Table 2 provides 
information about the species that are potentially present in the 
project area. This notice of proposed authorization assesses the 
potential impacts to Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, 
Dall's porpoise, killer whale, and humpback whale, which are the 
species that regularly occur or that may occur in the project area.
    In the species accounts provided here, we offer a brief 
introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available 
information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any 
information regarding local occurrence.

                     Table 2--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                ESA/ MMPA        Stock abundance
                                                 status;         (CV, Nmin, most                    Relative
       Species                Stock          strategic (Y/N)     recent abundance    PBR \3\     occurrence  in
                                                   \1\             survey) \2\                       Kodiak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
                                         Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dall's porpoise......  Alaska.............  -: N               83,400 (0.097; n/a;      Undet  Rare.
                                                                1993).
Harbor porpoise......  Gulf of Alaska.....  -: S               31,046 (n/a; n/a;        Undet  Common.
                                                                2010).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
                                          Family Delphinidae (dolphins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale.........  Eastern North        -: N               2,347 (n/a; 2,347;        23.4  Common.
                        Pacific Alaska                          2012).
                        Resident.
                       Eastern North        -: N               587 (n/a; 587;             5.9  Common.
                        Pacific Gulf of                         2012).
                        AK, Aleutian
                        Islands, and
                        Bering Sea
                        Transient.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
                                             Family Balaenopteridae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.......  Central North        n/a \4\; S         10,103 (0.300;              83  Rare.
                        Pacific.                                7,890; 2006).
                       Western North        n/a \4\; S         1,107 (0.300; 865;           3  Rare.
                        Pacific.                                2006).
Fin whale............  Northeast Pacific..  E/D; S             n/a (n/a; n/a;           undet  Rare.
                                                                2010).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
                                              Family Eschrichtiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey whale...........  Eastern North        -:N                20,990 (0.05;              624  Rare.
                        Pacific.                                20,125; 2011).

[[Page 79353]]

 
                                     Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
                                  Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion.....  wDPS...............  E/D; S             49,497 (n/a;               297  Common.
                                                                49,497; 2014).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
                                         Family Phocidae (earless seals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..........  South Kodiak.......  -; N               19,199 (n/a;               314  Common.
                                                                17,479; 2011).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species
  is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one
  for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) 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\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not
  applicable. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often
  pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species' (or similar species')
  life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the
  minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\3\ Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP).
\4\ The newly defined DPSs do not currently align with the stocks under the MMPA.

Cetaceans

Harbor Porpoise
    The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic 
waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point 
Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoise 
primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most frequently in waters 
less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). They may occasionally be 
found in deeper offshore waters.
    In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three 
stocks, based primarily on geography. These are the Bering Sea stock, 
the Southeast Alaska stock, and the Gulf of Alaska stock (Allen and 
Angliss 2015). Only the Gulf of Alaska stock is considered in this 
application because the other stocks are not found in the geographic 
area under consideration.
    Harbor porpoises are neither designated as depleted under the MMPA 
nor listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Because the most 
recent abundance estimate is 14 years old and information on incidental 
harbor porpoise mortality in commercial fisheries is not well 
understood, the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor porpoise is classified 
as strategic. Population trends and status of this stock relative to 
optimum sustainable population size are currently unknown with an 
undetermined PBR. The Gulf of Alaska stock is currently estimated at 
31,046 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2015). No reliable information is 
available to determine trends in abundance.
    According to the online database Ocean Biogeographic Information 
System, Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations 
(OBIS-SEAMAP), West Coast populations have more restricted movements 
and do not migrate as much as East Coast populations. Most harbor 
porpoise groups are small, generally consisting of less than five 
individuals (Halpin 2009 at OBIS-SEAMAP 2016). Harbor porpoise in 
Southeast Alaska are usually found in groups of one or two individuals 
(Dahlheim 2009, 2015).
    Harbor porpoises commonly frequent Kodiak's nearshore waters, but 
are rarely if ever noted in the Kodiak channel (K. Wynne, pers. comm.). 
Harbor porpoises are expected to be encountered rarely in the project 
area. During the Kodiak ferry terminal reconstruction project, six 
sightings of singles or pairs of harbor porpoise were seen during 110 
days of monitoring (ABR 2016).
Dall's Porpoise
    Dall's porpoise are widely distributed in the North Pacific Ocean, 
usually in deep oceanic waters (>2,500 m) or over the continental shelf 
or along slopes (Muto et al., 2015). They are present throughout the 
entire year. The stock structure of eastern North Pacific Dall's 
porpoise is not adequately understood at this time; therefore, only one 
stock is recognized in Alaskan waters: The Alaska stock (Muto et al., 
2015).
    The Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise has an abundance estimate of 
83,400 individuals based on surveys from the early 1990s. However, this 
data is unreliable because it is over eight years old. Information on 
PBR and population trends are not currently available (Muto et al., 
2015). Dall's porpoise are not designated as depleted or classified as 
strategic under the MMPA, nor are they listed under the ESA (Muto et 
al., 2015). The main threat to this species is habitat modification 
from climate change and urban/industrial development (Muto et al., 
2015). Average group size for Dall's porpoise in Southeast Alaska is 
three individuals (Dahlheim 2009). The OBIS SEAMAP Web site states that 
this species forms small groups of between two and 12 individuals 
(Halpin 2009 at OBIS-SEAMAP 2016).
    Dall's porpoise are considered uncommon in the action area, except 
in the narrow channel between Woody Island and Near Island Channel 
where the waters may be deeper. No Dall's porpoise were observed in the 
Near Island Channel during a recent project at the nearby Kodiak ferry 
terminal over 110 days of monitoring (ABR 2016).
Killer Whale
    Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the 
world, but the highest densities occur in colder and more productive 
waters found at high latitudes (Muto et al., 2015). Killer whales are 
found throughout the North Pacific, and occur along the entire Alaska 
coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and

[[Page 79354]]

along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Muto et 
al., 2015).
    Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements, 
and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized 
within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, seven of which occur 
in Alaska: (1) The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern Resident 
stock; (3) the Southern Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska, 
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient 
stock; (6) the West Coast transient stock, occurring from California 
through southeastern Alaska; and (7) the Offshore stock. Only the 
Alaska Resident stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and 
Bering Sea Transient stock are considered in this application because 
other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration.
    The Alaska Resident stock occurs from southeastern Alaska to the 
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. Although the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock occupies a range that includes 
all of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in Alaska, few individuals have 
been seen in southeastern Alaska. The transient stock occurs primarily 
from Prince William Sound through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.
    The Alaska Resident stock of killer whales is currently estimated 
at 2,347 individuals, and the estimate of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock is 587 individuals (Muto et 
al., 2015). The abundance estimate for the Alaska Resident stock is 
likely underestimated because researchers continue to encounter new 
whales in the Gulf of Alaska and western Alaskan waters. At present, 
reliable data on trends in population abundance for both stocks are 
unavailable.
    Transient killer whales are seen periodically in waters of Kodiak 
Harbor, with photo-documentation since at least 1993 (Kodiak Seafood 
and Marine Science Center 2015). One pod known to visit Kodiak Harbor 
includes an adult female and adult male that have distinctive dorsal 
fins that make repeated recognition possible. This, as well as their 
easy visibility from shore, has led to their ``popularity'' in Kodiak, 
where their presence is often announced on public radio. They have been 
repeatedly observed and photographed attacking Steller sea lions.
    The Kodiak killer whales appear to specialize in preying on Steller 
sea lions commonly found near Kodiak's processing plants, fishing 
vessels, and docks. This pod kills and consumes at least four to six 
Steller sea lions per year from the Kodiak harbor area, primarily from 
February through May (Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center 2015, 
Wynne 2015b). Four pods, ranging from three to seven individuals, were 
observed during the Kodiak Ferry terminal reconstruction project over 
110 days of monitoring, with animals staying between five minutes and 
five hours (ABR 2016). Further information on the biology and local 
distribution of these species can be found in the City's application 
available online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 
which may be found at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.
Humpback Whale
    Humpback whales are found worldwide in all ocean basins. In winter, 
most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical waters of 
the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (Muto et al., 2015). These 
wintering grounds are used for mating, giving birth, and nursing new 
calves. Humpback whales migrate nearly 3,000 mi (4,830 km) from their 
winter breeding grounds to their summer foraging grounds in Alaska.
    There are five stocks of humpback whales, two of which occur in 
Alaska: The Central North Pacific Stock, which consists of winter/
spring populations in the Hawaiian Islands which migrate primarily to 
northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and the 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; and the Western North Pacific stock, which 
consists of winter/spring populations off Asia which migrate primarily 
to Russia and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2015). The 
Western North Pacific stock is found in coastal and inland waters 
around the Pacific Rim from Point Conception, California, north to the 
Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian Islands 
to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk and north of the 
Bering Strait, which are historical feeding grounds (Muto et al., 
2015). Information from a variety of sources indicates that humpback 
whales from the Western and Central North Pacific stocks mix to a 
limited extent on summer feeding grounds ranging from British Columbia 
through the central Gulf of Alaska and up to the Bering Sea (Muto et 
al., 2015).
    The current abundance estimate for the Central North Pacific stock 
is 10,103 animals, with PBR at 83 animals, and it is considered a 
strategic stock (Muto et al., 2015). The current abundance estimate for 
the Western North Pacific stock is 1,107 animals, with PBR at 3 
animals, and it is also considered a strategic stock (Muto et al., 
2015).
    In the Gulf of Alaska, high densities of humpback whales are found 
in the Shumagin Islands, south and east of Kodiak Island, and from the 
Barren Islands through Prince William Sound. Although densities in any 
particular location are not high, humpback whales are also found in 
deep waters south of the continental shelf from the eastern Aleutians 
through the Gulf of Alaska.
    Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered 
Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced 
the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. NMFS 
recently evaluated the status of the species, and on September 8, 2016, 
NMFS divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), 
removed the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four 
DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (NMFS 2016b, 81 FR 62259). 
The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There are three DPSs that may 
occur in the action area: The Mexico DPS, the Hawaii DPS, and the 
Western North Pacific (WNP) DPS. The Hawaii DPS of humpback whales is 
not listed under the ESA, the Mexico DPS is listed as threatened, and 
the WNP DPS is listed as endangered (NMFS 2016b, 81 FR 62259). Because 
this rule resulted in the designation of DPSs in the North Pacific, a 
parallel revision of MMPA population structure in the North Pacific is 
currently being considered.
    Of the humpback whales found in Alaska, it is estimated that 89 
percent are from the Hawaii DPS, 10.5 percent are from the Mexico DPS, 
and 0.5 percent are from the WNP DPS (Wade et al., 2016). The current 
abundance estimate for the Hawaii DPS is 11,398 individuals and is 
thought to be increasing with a population trend estimate of 5.5-6 
percent (NMFS 2016b; 81 FR 62259). The current abundance estimate for 
the Mexico DPS is 3,264 individuals and the population trend is unknown 
(NMFS 2016b; 81 FR 62259). The current abundance estimate for the 
Western North Pacific DPS is 1,059 individuals, with an unknown trend 
(NMFS 2016b; 81 FR 62259).
    Humpback whales are rarely seen in the action area, but occur in 
nearshore waters around Kodiak Island. One humpback whale was observed 
in Near Island Channel on one occasion in March 2016 during the Kodiak 
ferry terminal reconstruction project over 110 days of monitoring (ABR 
2016).

[[Page 79355]]

Humpbacks may also be present in the channel between Woody Island and 
Near Island Channel where a narrow band may be ensonified from 
construction activities.

Pinnipeds

Steller Sea Lion
    The Steller sea lion is the largest of the eared seals. Steller sea 
lion populations that primarily occur west of 144[deg] W (Cape 
Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western Distinct Population Segment 
(wDPS). Only the wDPS is considered in this application because the 
eastern DPS (eDPS) occurs outside the geographic area under 
consideration. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide 
under the ESA on 26 November 1990 (55 FR 49204). Steller sea lions were 
subsequently partitioned into the western and eastern DPSs in 1997 
(Allen and Angliss 2010), with the wDPS being listed as endangered 
under the ESA and the eDPS remaining classified as threatened (62 FR 
24345) until it was delisted in November 2013.
    The range of the Steller sea lion includes the North Pacific Ocean 
rim from California to northern Japan. Steller sea lions forage in 
nearshore and pelagic waters where they are opportunistic predators. 
They feed primarily on a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods. 
Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take 
refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally used rookeries 
to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or sand 
beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs (Allen and Angliss 2013).
    The wDPS of Steller sea lions declined approximately 75 percent 
from 1976 to 1990. Factors that may have contributed to this decline 
include (1) incidental take in fisheries, (2) legal and illegal 
shooting, (3) predation, (4) contaminants, (5) disease, and (6) climate 
change. Non-pup Steller sea lion counts at trend sites in the wDPS 
increased 11 percent during 2000-2004. These counts were the first 
region-wide increases for the wDPS since standardized surveys began in 
the 1970s, and were due to increased or stable counts in all regions 
except the western Aleutian Islands. During 2004-2008, western Alaska 
non-pup counts increased only three percent; eastern Gulf of Alaska 
(Prince William Sound area) counts were higher; counts from the Kenai 
Peninsula through Kiska Island, including Kodiak Island, were stable; 
and western Aleutian counts continued to decline (Allen and Angliss 
2010). Steller sea lions have a worldwide population estimated at 
120,000 to 140,000 animals, with approximately 93,000 in Alaska. The 
most recent comprehensive estimate for abundance of the wDPS in Alaska 
is 49,497 sea lions, based on aerial and land-based surveys conducted 
in 2013-2014 (Muto et al., 2015). Steller sea lions are the most 
obvious and abundant marine mammals in the project area.
    On 27 August 1993, NMFS published a final rule designating critical 
habitat for the Steller sea lion as a 20 nautical mile (nmi) buffer 
around all major haul-outs and rookeries, as well as associated 
terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging 
areas (NMFS 1993; 50 CFR 226.202). The major natural Steller sea lion 
haulouts closest to the project area are located on Long Island and 
Cape Chiniak, which are approximately 4.6 nmi (8.5 kilometers (km)) and 
13.8 nmi (25.6 km) away from the project site, respectively. Annual 
counts averaged 33 animals on Long Island from 2008 through 2010, and 
119 animals at Cape Chiniak during the same time period (Table 4-1 in 
the City's application). The closest rookery is located on Marmot 
Island, approximately 30 nmi (55.5 km) from the project site, which had 
average annual counts of 656 animals from 2008 through 2010 (as cited 
in NMFS 2013). Critical habitat is associated with breeding and haulout 
areas in Alaska, California, and Oregon (NMFS 1993).
    Many individual sea lions have become habituated to human activity 
in the Kodiak harbor area and utilize a man-made haulout float called 
Dog Bay float located in St. Herman Harbor, about 1,300 m (4,300 feet) 
from the project site (See Figure 1-2; Figure 3-1 in the application). 
A section from an old floating breakwater, the float was relocated to 
Dog Bay in the year 2000 and was intended to serve as a dedicated sea 
lion haulout. It serves its purpose of reducing sea lion-human 
conflicts in Kodiak's docks and harbors by providing an undisturbed 
haulout location and reducing the numbers of sea lions that haul out on 
vessel moorage floats. However, the float is not a federally recognized 
haulout and is not considered part of sea lion critical habitat.
    Counts of sea lions hauled out on the Dog Bay float may provide an 
index of the number of Steller sea lions in the harbor area. Because 
this float is not considered an official haulout by NMFS, few 
standardized surveys to count sea lions have been conducted (Wynne 
2015a). Surveys from 2004 through 2006 indicated peak winter (October-
April) counts ranging from 27 to 33 animals (Wynne et al., 2011). 
Counts from February 2015 during a site visit by biologists for the 
Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project ranged from 
approximately 28 to 45 sea lions on the float. More than 100 sea lions 
were counted on the Dog Bay float at times in spring 2015, although the 
mean number was much smaller (Wynne 2015b).
    Abundant and predictable sources of food for sea lions in the 
Kodiak area include fishing gear, fishing boats and tenders, and the 
many seafood processing facilities that accept transfers of fish from 
offloading vessels. Sea lions have become accustomed to depredating 
fishing gear and raiding fishing vessels during fishing and offloading 
and they follow potential sources of food around the harbors and docks, 
waiting for opportunities to feed. When vessels are offloading fish at 
the docks of processing facilities, the sea lions rear out of the water 
to look over the gunnels for fish on the deck; if the vessel is a stern 
trawler, they charge up the stern ramp or codend to gain access to the 
deck (Speckman 2015; Ward 2015; Wynne 2015a).
    The number of sea lions in the immediate project area varies 
depending on the season and presence of commercial fishing vessels 
unloading their catch at the seafood processing plant dock immediately 
adjacent to Pier 1, approximately 100 m from the transient float. 
During the February 2015 Pier 1 site visit by HDR biologists, from zero 
up to about 25 sea lions were seen at one time in the Pier 1 project 
area. About 22 of those sea lions were subadults that were clearly 
foraging on schooling fishes in the area and were not interacting with 
the fishing vessels offloading at the seafood processing plant at the 
time. A stern trawler offloading at the processing plant dock during 
this period was attended by three mature bull sea lions, which 
constantly swam back and forth behind the stern watching for an 
opportunity to gain access.
    At least four other seafood processing facilities are present in 
Kodiak and operate concurrently with the one located next to Pier 1. 
All are visited by sea lions looking for food, and all are successfully 
raided by sea lions with regularity (Wynne 2015a). Sea lions also 
follow and raid fishing vessels. The seafood processing facility 
adjacent to the Pier 1 project site is therefore not the only source of 
food for Kodiak sea lions that inhabit the harbor area. Furthermore, 
sea lions in a more ``natural'' situation do not generally eat every 
day, but tend to forage every 1-2 days and return to haulouts to rest 
between foraging trips (Merrick and

[[Page 79356]]

Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al. 2009). Based on numbers at the Dog Bay 
float and sea lion behavior, it is estimated that about 40 unique 
individual sea lions likely pass by the project site each day (Speckman 
2015; Ward 2015; Wynne 2015a). Sea lions in the Kodiak harbor area are 
habituated to fishing vessels and are skilled at gaining access to 
fish. It is likely that some of the same animals follow local vessels 
to the nearby fishing grounds and back to town. It is also likely that 
hearing-impaired or deaf sea lions are among the sea lions that attend 
the seafood processing facilities. It is not known how a hearing-
impaired or deaf sea lion would respond to typical mitigation efforts 
at a construction site such as ramping up of pile-driving equipment. It 
is also unknown whether a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would avoid 
pile-driving activity, or whether such an animal might approach 
closely, without responding to or being impacted by the noise level.
Harbor Seal
    Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts 
of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast 
Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the 
Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the 
Pribilof Islands. Distribution of the South Kodiak stock extends from 
East Cape (northeast coast of Kodiak Island) south to South Cape 
(Chirikof Island), including Tugidak Island, and up the southwest coast 
of Kodiak Island to Middle Cape.
    In 2010, harbor seals in Alaska were partitioned into 12 separate 
stocks based largely on genetic structure (Allen and Angliss 2010). 
Only the South Kodiak stock is considered in this application because 
other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration.
    The current statewide abundance estimate for Alaskan harbor seals 
is 205,090, based on aerial survey data collected during 1998-2011 
(Muto et al., 2015). The abundance estimate for the South Kodiak stock 
is 19,199 (Muto et al., 2015). Harbor seals have declined dramatically 
in some parts of their range over the past few decades, while in other 
parts their numbers have increased or remained stable over similar time 
periods.
    A significant portion of the harbor seal population within the 
South Kodiak stock is located at and around Tugidak Island off the 
southwest of Kodiak Island. Sharp declines in the number of seals 
present on Tugidak were observed between 1976 and 1998. Although the 
number of seals on Tugidak Island has stabilized and shows some 
evidence of increase since the decline, the population in 2000 remained 
reduced by 80 percent compared to the levels in the 1970s (Jemison et 
al., 2006). The current population trend for this stock is unknown.
    Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting 
glacial ice (Allen and Angliss 2014). They are non-migratory; their 
local movements are associated with tides, weather, season, food 
availability, and reproduction, as well as sex and age class (Allen and 
Angliss 2014; Boveng et al., 2012; Lowry et al., 2001; Swain et al., 
1996).
    Although the number of harbor seals on eastern Kodiak haulouts has 
been increasing steadily since the early 1990s (Kodiak Seafood and 
Marine Science Center 2015), sightings are rare in the project area. 
Several harbor seals tagged at Uganik Bay (Northwest Kodiak Island) 
dispersed as far north as Anchorage and as far south as Chignik, but 
none were found near Kodiak (Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center 
2015). Harbor seals are expected to be encountered occasionally in the 
project area. Harbor seals were occasionally observed during the Kodiak 
ferry terminal reconstruction project, with one seen in January 2016 
and three observed in March 2016 (ABR 2016).

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components, (e.g., pile driving,) of the specified activity, including 
mitigation may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated 
Take by Incidental Harassment section later in this document will 
include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are 
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 
section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will 
impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, 
the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section, and the Proposed 
Mitigation section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of 
this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of 
individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or 
stocks. In the following discussion, we provide general background 
information on sound and marine mammal hearing before considering 
potential effects to marine mammals from sound produced by pile 
extraction, vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, and down-hole 
drilling.

Description of Sound Sources

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

[[Page 79357]]

away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), 
except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and 
decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in 
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as 
hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient 
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a 
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level 
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated 
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., 
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds 
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic 
sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of 
sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following 
(Richardson et al., 1995):
     Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and 
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of 
naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 
kHz (Mitson 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase 
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes 
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 
during heavy surf conditions.
     Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the 
water surface can become an important component of total noise at 
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 
times.
     Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to 
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band 
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 
kHz.
     Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human 
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), 
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic 
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise 
typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 
and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 
below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they 
attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable 
anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a 
passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to 
ambient sound.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate 
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, 
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the 
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local 
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine 
mammals.
    The underwater acoustic environment at the ferry terminal is likely 
to be dominated by noise from day-to-day port and vessel activities. 
This is a highly industrialized area with high-use from small- to 
medium-sized vessels, and larger vessel that use the nearby major 
shipping channel. Ambient underwater sound was measured in Near Island 
Channel, approximately 100 m southwest and 900 m northeast of the 
Transient Float, in March 2016 during construction of the Pier 1 Kodiak 
Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project. Measurements recorded 
highly variable sound pressure levels (SPLs), ranging from 
approximately 80 to 140 decibels referenced to one microPascal (dB re 1 
[mu]Pa). Peaks ranging from approximately 130 to 140 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
were produced by vessels passing near acoustic recorders (Warner and 
Austin 2016).
    In-water construction activities associated with the project would 
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and extraction, and 
down-hole drilling. The sounds produced by these activities fall into 
one of two general sound types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the 
following paragraphs). The distinction between these two sound types is 
important because they have differing potential to cause physical 
effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 
Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-
depth discussion of these concepts.
    Pulsed sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and 
occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed 
sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient 
pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period 
that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and 
minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce 
physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
    Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or 
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; 
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals 
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., 
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced 
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or 
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as 
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received 
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant 
environment.
    Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a 
pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact 
hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a 
potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). 
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the 
weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers 
produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 
180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs 
generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et 
al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity 
of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of 
time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005). Down-hole 
drilling uses a drill bit that drills through the sediment and a pulse 
mechanism that functions at the bottom of the hole, using a pulsing bit 
to break up the harder materials or rock to allow removal of the 
fragments and insertion of the pile. The head extends so that the

[[Page 79358]]

drilling takes place below the pile. Drilling is considered a 
continuous noise source, and has similar SPLs as vibratory driving.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, 
and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately 
assess these potential effects, 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 
measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available 
behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential 
techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. The lower and/or upper 
frequencies for some of these functional hearing groups have been 
modified by NMFS from those designated by Southall et al., (2007) as 
new information has become available. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency 
ranges do not necessarily correspond to the range of best hearing, 
which varies by species):
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
25 kHz (up to 30 kHz in some species), with best hearing estimated to 
be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz (Watkins, 1986; Ketten, 1998; Houser et al., 
2001; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; Ketten et al., 2007; 
Parks et al., 2007a; 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 is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz with best hearing from 10 to less than 
100 kHz (Johnson, 1967; White, 1977; Richardson et al., 1995; Szymanski 
et al., 1999; Kastelein et al., 2003; Finneran et al., 2005a, 2009; 
Nachtigall et al., 2005, 2008; Yuen et al., 2005; Popov et al., 2007; 
Au and Hastings, 2008; Houser et al., 2008; Pacini et al., 2010, 2011; 
Schlundt et al., 2011);
     High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and 
Cephalorhynchus; now considered to include two members of the genus 
Lagenorhynchus on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic 
data [May-Collado and Agnarsson, 2006; Kyhn et al. 2009, 2010; Tougaard 
et al. 2010]): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz (Popov and Supin, 1990a,b; Kastelein 
et al., 2002; Popov et al., 2005);
     Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated 
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz with best hearing 
between 1-50 kHz (M[oslash]hl, 1968; Terhune and Ronald, 1971, 1972; 
Richardson et al., 1995; Kastak and Schusterman, 1999; Reichmuth, 2008; 
Kastelein et al., 2009); and
     Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is 
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 48 kHz, with best 
hearing between 2-48 kHz (Schusterman et al., 1972; Moore and 
Schusterman, 1987; Babushina et al., 1991; Richardson et al., 1995; 
Kastak and Schusterman, 1998; Kastelein et al., 2005a; Mulsow and 
Reichmuth, 2007; Mulsow et al., 2011a, b).
    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 et al., 
2013).
    As mentioned previously in this document, six marine mammal species 
(four cetaceans and two pinnipeds) may occur in the project area. Of 
these four cetaceans, one is classified as a low-frequency cetacean 
(i.e., humpback whale), one is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean 
(i.e., killer whale), and two are classified as a high-frequency 
cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise) (Southall et al., 
2007). Additionally, harbor seals are classified as members of the 
phocid pinnipeds in water functional hearing group while Steller sea 
lions are grouped under the Otariid pinnipeds in water functional 
hearing group. A species' functional hearing group is a consideration 
when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals. 
Marine mammal hearing groups were also used in the establishment of 
marine mammal auditory weighting functions in the new acoustic 
guidance.

Acoustic Impacts

    Please refer to the information given previously (Description of 
Sound Sources) regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and 
metrics used in this document. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range 
of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable 
impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe 
responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, 
behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of 
underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in 
one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral 
disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Gotz et al., 
2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal 
characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration 
of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause 
hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary 
or permanent loss of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise 
within an animal's hearing range. In this section, we first describe 
specific manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion 
specific to the City's construction activities in the next section.
    Permanent Threshold Shift--Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity 
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can 
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing 
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt 
et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005b). TS can be permanent (PTS), 
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, 
or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would 
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound exposure that 
leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be 
total or partial deafness, while in most cases the animal has an 
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 
1985).
    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue 
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other 
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of 
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical 
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to 
constitute auditory injury.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals--PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal 
(Kastak et al.,

[[Page 79359]]

2008)--but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other 
terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least 
several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset; 
e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB 
threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al. 2007). 
Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is 
that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as impact pile driving 
pulses as received close to the source) are at least six dB higher than 
the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound 
exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative 
sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007).
    Temporary threshold shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing 
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). 
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must 
be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine 
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong 
TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after 
exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations 
necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and 
none of the data published at the time of this writing concern TTS 
elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to 
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate 
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency 
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there 
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin [Tursiops trancatus], beluga whale [Delphinapterus 
leucas], harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise [Neophocoena 
asiaeorientalis]) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant 
seal [Mirounga angustirostris], harbor seal, and California sea lion 
[Zalophus californianus]) exposed to a limited number of sound sources 
(i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 
(e.g., Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastak et al., 
2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, harbor seals 
(Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a) and harbor porpoises 
(Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have a lower TTS onset 
than other measured pinniped or cetacean species. Additionally, the 
existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of 
individuals within these species. There are no data available on noise-
induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in 
marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 
please see Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
    Behavioral effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of 
effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous 
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or 
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment 
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly 
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous 
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, 
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., 
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; 
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not 
only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on 
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other 
factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on 
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is 
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). 
Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of 
studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud 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

[[Page 79360]]

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 
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, grey whales 
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory 
paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area 
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold 1996; Stone 
et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-
term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in 
abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the 
affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not 
occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et 
al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of 
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine 
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight 
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight response could range from brief, 
temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal 
provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (Evans 
and England 2001). However, it should be noted that response to a 
perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves 
2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence 
the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 
2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical 
(in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the 
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress 
typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune

[[Page 79361]]

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).
    Auditory masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or 
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or 
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for 
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, 
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking 
occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another 
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher 
intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping 
shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, 
sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to 
mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of 
both the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise 
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and 
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, 
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, 
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation 
conditions.
    Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing 
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the 
coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment 
when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to 
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from 
masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking 
(without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological 
function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a 
potential behavioral effect.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation 
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection 
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. 
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be 
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g., 
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as 
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; 
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt 
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal 
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), 
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other 
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested 
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations 
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking 
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking 
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., 
Branstetter et al., 2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
    Non-auditory physiological effects--Non-auditory physiological 
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals 
exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological 
effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ 
or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies 
examining such effects are limited. In general, little is known about 
the potential for pile driving to cause auditory impairment or other 
physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such 
effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short 
distances from the sound source, where SLs are much higher, and to 
activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do 
not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-
auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any 
meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine 
mammals that might be affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show 
behavioral avoidance of pile driving, including some odontocetes and 
some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or 
non-auditory physical effects.
    Strandings--When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto 
shore and is incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a 
``stranding'' (16 U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand 
for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 
starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or 
weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors 
sustained concurrently or in series (e.g., Geraci et al., 1999). 
However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (e.g., Best 
1982). Combinations of dissimilar stressors may combine to kill an 
animal or dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure 
without the other would not be expected to produce the

[[Page 79362]]

same outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For further description of 
stranding events see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2013; 
Wright et al., 2013. Strandings are not expected from the City's 
activities since construction activities are not associated with any of 
the reasons for strandings stated above, with the exception of sound 
exposure. However, the SLs from the construction activities are not at 
levels that cause injury or mortality, and therefore are not expected 
to cause strandings. If a stranded animal is observed, the City shall 
follow NMFS protocol described in the Proposed Reporting Measures 
section.

Underwater Acoustic Effects From the City's Activities

    Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound--The effects of sounds from 
pile driving might include one or more of the following: Temporary or 
permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological 
effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; 
Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The 
effects of pile driving on marine mammals are dependent on several 
factors, including the type and depth of the animal; the pile size and 
type, and the intensity and duration of the pile driving sound; the 
substrate; the standoff distance between the pile and the animal; and 
the sound propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine 
mammals from pile driving activities are expected to result primarily 
from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of effect is intrinsically 
related to the frequency, received level, and duration of the sound 
exposure, which are in turn influenced by the distance between the 
animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less 
intense the exposure should be. The substrate and depth of the habitat 
affect the sound propagation properties of the environment. In 
addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., sand) would absorb or 
attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (e.g., rock) 
which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates would also 
likely require less time to drive the pile, and possibly less forceful 
equipment, which would ultimately decrease the intensity of the 
acoustic source.
    Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals 
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can 
experience hearing threshold shifts. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS 
does not (Southall et al., 2007). Based on the best scientific 
information available, the SPLs for the City's construction activities 
may exceed the thresholds that could cause TTS or the onset of PTS 
based on NMFS' new acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016a, 81 FR 51694; August 
4, 2016).
    Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological 
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals 
exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of 
extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result 
of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include 
neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other 
types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 
2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). The City's activities do not involve the 
use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency active sonar that 
are associated with these types of effects, nor do they have SLs that 
may cause these extreme behavioral reactions, and are therefore, 
considered unlikely.
    Disturbance Reactions--Responses to continuous sound, such as 
vibratory pile installation, have not been documented as well as 
responses to pulsed sounds. With both types of pile driving, it is 
likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short 
term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the 
affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 
1995): Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per 
surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal 
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such 
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 
areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., 
pinnipeds flushing into water from haul-outs or rookeries). Pinnipeds 
may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water 
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). If a marine mammal responds to a 
stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor 
changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization behavior), the 
response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and 
is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if 
a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or 
breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals, and if so 
potentially on the stock or species, could potentially be significant 
(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant 
behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on 
growth, survival, or reproduction include:
     Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as 
those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Longer-term habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable 
acoustic environment; and
     Longer-term cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and 
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals 
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
    Auditory Masking--Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt 
behavior by masking. The frequency range of the potentially masking 
sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. The 
most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those 
produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of 
pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these 
sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals 
present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively 
short-term, and only used for proofing, with rapid pulses occurring for 
only a few minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving 
resulting from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important 
to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species is low. Vibratory 
pile driving is also relatively short-term. It is possible that 
vibratory pile driving resulting from this proposed action may mask 
acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine 
mammal species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area 
would result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event 
that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would 
occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already 
estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have already 
been taken into account in the exposure analysis.

[[Page 79363]]

    Airborne Acoustic Effects from the City's Activities--Pinnipeds 
that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds 
associated with pile driving that have the potential to cause 
behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving 
activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds 
that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.
    Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are 
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise 
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that 
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may 
result in behavioral harassment when looking with heads above water. 
Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to 
those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, 
anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes 
in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 
them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. 
However, these animals would previously have been `taken' as a result 
of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment 
thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with 
airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is 
already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Multiple 
instances of exposure to sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral 
harassment are not believed to result in increased behavioral 
disturbance, in either nature or intensity of disturbance reaction. 
Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take 
resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 
sound is not discussed further here.
    Ambient noise--The transient float project area is frequented by 
fishing vessels and tenders; ferries, barges, tugboats; and other 
commercial and recreational vessels that use the channel to access 
harbors and city docks, fuel docks, processing plants where fish 
catches are offloaded, and other commercial facilities. At the seafood 
processing plant, to the southwest of the transient float, fish are 
offloaded by vacuum hose straight into the processing plant from the 
vessels' holds, and vessels raft up three and four deep to the dock 
during peak fishing seasons. Northeast of the processing plant is the 
Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal, which is an active ferry terminal and 
multi-use dock in Near Island Channel. Between the ferry terminal and 
the transient float is the Petro Marine fuel dock, which services a 
range of vessel sizes, including larger vessels that can be 
accommodated by docking at the transient float. Two boat harbors exist 
in Near Island Channel, which house a number of commercial and 
recreational marine vessels. The channel is also a primary route for 
local vessel traffic to access waters outside the Gulf of Alaska.
    High levels of vessel traffic are known to elevate background 
levels of noise in the marine environment. For example, continuous 
sounds for tugs pulling barges have been reported to range from 145 to 
166 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms at 1 meter from the source (Miles et al., 1987; 
Richardson et al., 1995; Simmonds et al., 2004). Ambient underwater 
sound was measured in Near Island Channel, approximately 100 m 
southwest and 900 m northeast of the Transient Float, in March 2016 
during construction of the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock 
Improvements Project. Measurements recorded highly variable sound 
pressure levels (SPLs), ranging from approximately 80 to 140 decibels 
referenced to one microPascal (dB re 1 [mu]Pa). Peaks ranging from 
approximately 130 to 140 dB re 1 [mu]Pa were produced by vessels 
passing near acoustic recorders (Warner and Austin 2016). Ambient 
underwater noise levels in the transient float project area are both 
variable and relatively high, and are expected to mask some sounds of 
drilling, pile installation, and pile extraction.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory and impact 
pile driving and removal in the area, and down-hole drilling. However, 
other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical 
disturbance are also possible.
    Potential Pile Driving Effects on Prey--Construction activities 
would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving, down-hole 
drilling) sounds and pulsed (i.e. impact driving) sounds. Essential 
Fish Habitat (EFH) has been designated within the project area for the 
Alaska stocks of Pacific salmon, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, 
yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera), arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes 
stomias), rock sole (Lepidopsetta spp.), flathead sole (Hippoglossoides 
elassodon), sculpin (Cottidae), skate (Rajidae), and squid 
(Teuthoidea). In accordance with the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NMFS notified the 
Alaska regional office about this activity, and EFH consultation was 
not considered necessary for issuance of this IHA.
    Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent 
low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or 
subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and 
Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate 
to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have 
documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based 
on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects 
(e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). Sound 
pulses at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in fish 
behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior 
(Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient 
strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality.
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the 
project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area since 
the majority of the construction activities will be at SLs lower than 
160 dB. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving 
stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, 
distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, because the 
majority of SLs will be 160 dB or lower, and the duration of the 
project is short (e.g., 12 days), impacts to marine mammal prey species 
are expected to be minor and temporary.
    Effects to Foraging Habitat--Pile installation may temporarily 
increase turbidity resulting from suspended sediments. Any increases 
would be temporary, localized, and minimal. The City 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 radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Cetaceans are not 
expected to be close enough to the project pile driving areas to 
experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be transiting 
the area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the 
impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable 
to marine mammals. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project 
site will not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must

[[Page 79364]]

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.
    For the proposed project, the City worked with NMFS and proposed 
the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to 
marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these 
mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, 
and to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence 
corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds. The 
Level B zones are depicted in Table 5 found later in the Estimated Take 
by Incidental Harassment section.
    Observer Qualifications--Monitoring would be conducted before, 
during, and after pile driving and removal activities. Monitoring will 
be conducted by a minimum of two qualified marine mammal observers 
(MMOs), who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to 
monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when 
applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. NMFS has 
minimum requirements for MMOs at the construction site, as well as 
specific qualifications (e.g., experience) needed of each MMO. MMO 
requirements for construction actions are as follows:
    1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required.
    2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    3. Other observers (that do not have prior experience) may 
substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or 
related field) or training for experience.
    4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, and need the following 
additional minimum qualifications:
    (a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
    (b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols
    (c) Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors
    (d) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations
    (e) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound 
of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine 
mammal behavior
    (f) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary
    Monitoring Protocols--The City will conduct briefings between 
construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and 
City staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when 
new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, 
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and 
operational procedures.
    Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will 
be monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine 
mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared 
the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to 
remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition) 
and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone 
may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire 
shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, 
etc.).
    If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during 
the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and 
delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually 
confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 30 minutes have passed without 
re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the 
time required to drive a pile, through 30 minutes post-completion of 
pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to 
remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed 
between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
    Observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, 
regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral 
reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. 
Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in 
shutdown; that pile segment would be completed without cessation, 
unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which 
point all pile driving activities would be halted, as described below. 
Please see Appendix B of the City's application for details on the 
marine mammal monitoring plan developed by the City with NMFS' 
cooperation.
    Ramp Up or Soft Start--The use of a soft start procedure is 
believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning 
or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the impact hammer 
operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to 
initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting 
period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is 
difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer 
because of variation across drivers. The project will utilize soft 
start techniques for all impact pile driving. NMFS will require the 
City to initiate sound from impact driving with an initial set of three 
strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 1-
minute waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft 
start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile 
driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile driving of 
30 minutes or longer.
    If a marine mammal is present within the Level A harassment zone, 
ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the Level A 
harassment zone. Activity will begin only after the MMO has determined, 
through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the Level A 
harassment zone.
    If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, Dall's 
porpoise, humpback whale, or killer whale is present in the Level B 
harassment zone, ramping up will begin and a Level B take will be 
documented. Ramping up will occur when these species are in the Level B 
harassment zone whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A 
zone, or from outside the project area.
    If any marine mammal other than Steller sea lions, harbor seals, 
harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoise, humpback whale, or killer whales is 
present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed 
until the animal(s)

[[Page 79365]]

leaves the zone. Ramping up will begin only after the MMO has 
determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the 
harassment zone.
    Pile Caps--Pile caps or cushions will be used during all impact 
pile-driving activities.
    Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities, the City will 
establish a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are intended to contain the 
area in which SPLs equal or exceed acoustic injury criteria, with the 
purpose being to define an area within which shutdown of activity would 
occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal 
entering the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals. 
Using the user spreadsheet for the new acoustic guidance, injury zones 
were determined for each of the hearing groups. These zones would be 
rounded to the nearest 10 or 100 m to be more conservative (Table 3). 
As a precautionary measure, intended to reduce the unlikely possibility 
of injury from direct physical interaction with construction 
operations, the City would implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m 
radius around each pile for all construction methods for all marine 
mammals. Additionally, to avoid acoustic injury, the following shutdown 
zones will be in place for all construction methods (vibratory 
extraction and installation, down-hole drilling, and impact driving): 
100 m for humpback whales, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise, 50 m 
for harbor seals, and 10 m for killer whales and Steller sea lions 
(Table 3).

            Table 3--Injury Zones and Shutdown Zones for Hearing Groups for Each Construction Method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Low-            Mid-            High-
          Hearing group              frequency       frequency       frequency        Phocid          Otariid
                                     cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans       pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Vibratory installation/extraction \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Isopleth to threshold (m)...         7.1 (8)         1.4 (2)        9.3 (10)         5.1 (6)         0.8 (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Down-hole drilling \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Isopleth to threshold (m)...      71.7 (100)         7.3 (8)      64.6 (100)      43.7 (100)         5.5 (6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Impact driving \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Isopleth to threshold (m)...         3.7 (4)         0.3 (1)         4.3 (5)         2.4 (3)         0.3 (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone (m)...............             100            * 10             100              50            * 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers in parentheses are the rounded zones (to the nearest 1 if under 10 m, and 10 or 100 m)
* The minimum 10 m shutdown in place for all construction projects would cover the injury zones for these
  hearing groups.
\1\ For vibratory driving, SL is 183.8, TL is 21.9logR, weighting function is 2.5, duration is 0.69 hours, and
  distance from the source is one m.
\2\ For down-hole drilling, SL is 192.5, TL is 18.9logR, weighting function is two, duration is four hours, and
  distance from the source is 1 m.
\3\ For impact driving, SL is 205.9, weighting function is two, duration is 0.3, pulse duration is 0.05, TL is
  20.3log R, strikes per pile is five, and distance from the source is 1 m.

    For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using, 
e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or 
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine 
mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall 
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and 
safe working conditions.
    Disturbance Zone--Disturbance zones are the areas in which sound 
pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed 120 dB rms (for continuous 
sound) and 160 dB rms (for impulsive sound) for pile driving 
installation and removal. Disturbance zones provide utility for 
monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone 
monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to 
the shutdown zones. The disturbance zone will be monitored by 
appropriately stationed MMOs. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables 
observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals 
in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for 
potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of 
disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting incidents of Level B 
harassment.
    Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone 
would constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded and 
reported as such. Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are 
shown in Table 4. Given the size of the disturbance zone for vibratory 
pile driving, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals would be 
observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral 
reactions to sound, and only a portion of the zone (e.g., what may be 
reasonably observed by visual observers) would be observed.
    In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors 
record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The 
observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven 
or removed, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is 
estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to 
the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal 
was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the 
basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing 
of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of 
observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be 
used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate 
understanding of actual total takes.
    Level B take of grey whales and fin whales is not requested and 
will be avoided by shutting down before individuals of these species 
enter the Level B zones.

[[Page 79366]]



 Table 4--Calculated Threshold Distances (m) From an Acoustic Monitoring
               Study Conducted at the Pier 1 in March 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Threshold distances (m)
              Source               -------------------------------------
                                          160 dB             120 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile driving/extraction.                n/a          821 (900)
Down-hole drilling................                n/a       6846 (7,000)
Impact pile driving...............          183 (200)                n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers in parentheses are the rounded zones (to the nearest 100
  or 1,000 m).

    In order to document observed incidents of harassment, MMOs record 
all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's 
location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known 
from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from 
the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile and 
the estimated zone of influence (ZOI) for relevant activities (i.e., 
pile installation and removal). This information may then be used to 
extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of 
actual total takes.
    Time Restrictions--Work would occur only during daylight hours, 
when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. To minimize 
impacts to pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry and coho salmon (O. 
kisutch) smolt, the City will refrain from impact pile driving from May 
1, 2017 through June 30, 2017. If impact pile-driving occurs from May 1 
through June 30, it will occur in the evenings during daylight hours, 
after the 12-hour period that begins at civil dawn.
    Proposed measures to ensure availability of such species or stock 
for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this 
document (see Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for 
Taking for Subsistence Uses section).

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation 
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of 
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of affecting the least 
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and 
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential 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 mammal species or stocks;
     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 below:
    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 received 
levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities 
expected 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 would be exposed 
to received levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other 
activities expected 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 received 
levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities 
expected 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 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 of 
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an 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 ITAs 
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. 
The City submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA 
application. It can be found in Appendix B of their application. The 
plan may be modified or supplemented 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, both 
within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective 
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data 
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are 
likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling 
that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral 
harassment, TTS, or PTS;

[[Page 79367]]

    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to stimuli expected to result in take and how 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:
    [ssquf] Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared 
to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    [ssquf] Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    [ssquf] 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.

Visual Marine Mammal Observation

    The City will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to 
construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of 
activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained 
in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have 
no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. As 
discussed previously, the City will monitor the shutdown zone and 
disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving. The MMOs and 
the City authorities will meet to determine the most appropriate 
observation platform(s) for monitoring during pile installation and 
extraction.
    Based on our MMO requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan 
would implement similar procedures as those described in the Proposed 
Mitigation section.

Data Collection

    We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other 
pieces of information, the City will record detailed information about 
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to 
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting 
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the City will attempt to 
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the 
number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the 
following information be collected on the sighting forms:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
     Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
     Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
     Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
     Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
     Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
     Other human activity in the area.

Proposed Reporting Measures

    The City would provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 
90 days of the conclusion of the proposed construction work. The report 
will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, 
and post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide 
descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by 
marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns 
and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take 
estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the 
course of construction. A final report must be submitted within thirty 
days following resolution of comments on the draft report. If no 
comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report 
will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final 
report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA 
(if issued), such as serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, 
gear interaction, and/or entanglement), the City would immediately 
cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to 
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator. The report would 
include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     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).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the City to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The City would not be able 
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
    In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead MMO 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 described in the next paragraph), 
the City would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator.
    The report would include the same information identified in the 
paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS 
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with the 
City to determine whether modifications in the activities are 
appropriate.
    In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the City would report the incident 
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline 
and/or by email to the Alaska Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of 
the discovery. The City would provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA

[[Page 79368]]

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].
    All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from 
vibratory pile driving and removal, impact pile driving, or down-hole 
drilling. Level B harassment may result in temporary changes in 
behavior. Note that injury, serious injury, and lethal takes are not 
expected, and are not authorized, for these activities due to the 
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures that are expected to 
minimize the possibility of such take.
    If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior 
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed 
or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute 
taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or 
the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine 
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged 
period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially 
be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given 
the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts 
of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many 
animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a 
given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound, in order to 
estimate take.
    Upland work can generate airborne sound and create visual 
disturbance that could potentially result in disturbance to marine 
mammals (specifically, pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the water's 
surface with heads above the water. However, because there are no 
regular haul-outs in close proximity to the Kodiak transient float, 
NMFS believes that incidents of incidental take resulting from airborne 
sound or visual disturbance are unlikely.
    The City has requested authorization for the incidental taking of 
small numbers, by Level B harassment, of harbor porpoise, Dall's 
porpoise, killer whale, humpback whale, Steller sea lion, and harbor 
seal near the project area that may result from impact and vibratory 
pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and down-hole drilling 
construction activities associated with the transient float project.
    The calculation for estimating marine mammal exposures to 
underwater noise is:

Exposure estimate = number of animals exposed/day * number of days of 
activity

    In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur 
incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent 
of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then 
consider the sound field in combination with information about marine 
mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide 
information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to 
marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the 
sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance 
information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take.

Sound Thresholds

    We use the following generic sound exposure thresholds (Table 5) to 
determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts 
to a marine mammal such that a take by behavioral harassment (Level B) 
might occur.

   Table 5--Underwater Disturbance Threshold Decibel Levels for Marine
                                 Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criterion           Criterion definition       Threshold *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment..........  Behavioral            160 dB RMS.
                               disruption for
                               impulse noise
                               (e.g., impact pile
                               driving).
Level B harassment..........  Behavioral            120 dB RMS.
                               disruption for non-
                               pulse noise (e.g.,
                               vibratory pile
                               driving, drilling).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All decibel levels referenced to 1 micropascal (re: 1 [mu]Pa). Note
  all thresholds are based off root mean square (RMS) levels.

    We use NMFS' new acoustic criteria (NMFS 2016a, 81 FR 51694; August 
4, 2016) to determine sound exposure thresholds to determine when an 
activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal 
such that a take by injury, in the form of Permanent Threshold Shift 
(PTS), might occur.

Distance to Sound Thresholds

    The sound field in the project area is the existing ambient noise 
plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. The 
primary components of the project expected to affect marine mammals is 
the sound generated by impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, 
vibratory pile removal, and down-hole drilling.
    After vibratory hammering has installed the pile through the 
overburden to the top of the bedrock layer, the vibratory hammer will 
be removed, and the down-hole drill will be inserted through the pile. 
The head extends below the pile and the drill rotates through soils and 
rock. The drilling/hammering takes place below the sediment layer and, 
as the drill advances, below the bedrock layer as well. Underwater 
noise levels are relatively low because the impact is taking place 
below the substrate rather than at the top of the piling, which limits 
transmission of noise through the water column. Additionally, there is 
a drive shoe welded on the bottom of the pile, and the upper portion of 
the bit rests on the shoe, which aids in advancement of the pile as 
drilling progresses. When the proper depth is achieved, the drill is 
retracted and the pile is left in place. Impact hammering typically 
generates the loudest noise associated with pile driving, but for the 
transient float project, use will be limited to a few blows per 24-inch 
steel pile.
    Several factors are expected to minimize the potential impacts of 
pile-driving and drilling noise associated with the project:
     The soft sediment marine seafloor and shallow waters in 
the proposed project area;
     Land forms across the channel that will block the noise 
from spreading; and
     The relatively high background noise level in the project 
area.
    Sound will dissipate relatively rapidly in the shallow waters over 
soft seafloors in the project area (NMFS 2013). St. Herman Harbor 
(Figure 2 in the application), where the Dog Bay float is located, is 
protected from the transient float construction noise by land 
projections and islands, which will block and redirect sound. Near 
Island and Kodiak Island, on either side of Near Island Channel, 
prevent the sound

[[Page 79369]]

from travelling underwater to the north, south, and southeast, 
restricting the noise to most of the channel; however a narrow band of 
noise may extend to Woody Island, approximately 3.75 km to the East.
    The project includes vibratory removal of 12-inch timber and steel 
piles; and vibratory installation and down-hole drilling of permanent 
24-inch steel piles. Each 24-inch pile may also be subject to a few 
blows from an impact hammer for proofing. No data are available for 
vibratory removal of piles, so it will be conservatively assumed that 
vibratory removal of piles will produce the same source level as 
vibratory installation.
    SPLs for this project were used from the nearby Pier 1 Kodiak ferry 
terminal measurements of 24-in steel piles from JASCO 2016 (Warner and 
Austin 2016). The ferry terminal is approximately 100 m from the 
transient float, and therefore has similar environmental conditions, 
and the project used the same installation methods and same size piles, 
making this a good proxy. Vibratory driving had a measured SL of 183.8 
dB rms at 1 m. Down-hole drilling had a measured SL of 192.5 dB at 1 m. 
Impact pile driving had a measured SL of 205.9 at 1 m.
    Underwater Sound Propagation Formula--Pile driving generates 
underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine 
mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in 
acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a 
source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 
current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and 
bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater 
TL is:

TL = B * log 10 (R 1/R 2),

Where

TL = transmission loss in dB
R 1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven 
pile, and
R 2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement

    NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15 
dB per tenfold increase in distance. However, for this analysis for the 
transient float project area, a TL of 21.9Log(R/10) (i.e., 21.9-dB loss 
per tenfold increase in distance) was used for vibratory pile driving, 
18.9Log(R/10) was used for down-hole drilling, and a 20.3Log TL(R/10) 
function was used for impact driving (Warner and Austin 2016). TL 
values were based on measured attenuation rates at the Pier 1, Kodiak 
Ferry Terminal, located approximately 100m away from the transient 
float project area.
    Distances to the harassment isopleths vary by marine mammal type 
and pile extraction/driving tool. The isopleth for Level A harassment 
are summarized in Table 3, and the isopleths for Level B harassment are 
summarized in Table 4. The ZOIs will be rounded up to the nearest 10, 
100, or 1,000 m for the transient float project.
    Note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is 
significantly constrained by local topography relative to the total 
threshold radius. The actual ensonified area was determined using a 
straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving 
locations. Distances to the underwater sound isopleths for Level B and 
Level A are illustrated respectively in Figures 15-17 in the City's 
application.
    The method used for calculating potential exposures to impact and 
vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold was estimated using 
local marine mammal data sets, monitoring reports from previous 
projects in the same vicinity, best professional judgment from state 
and federal agencies, and data from take estimates on similar projects 
with similar actions. All estimates are conservative and include the 
following assumptions:
     All pilings installed at each site would have an 
underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the 
greatest noise disturbance (i.e., the piling farthest from shore) 
installed with the method that has the largest ZOI. The largest 
underwater disturbance ZOI would be produced by down-hole drilling. The 
ZOIs for each threshold are not spherical and are truncated by land 
masses on either side of the channel which would dissipate sound 
pressure waves;
     Exposures were based on estimated work hours. Numbers of 
days were based on an average production rate of eight hours of 
vibratory driving/extraction, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less 
than one hour of impact driving and. Note that impact driving is likely 
to occur only on days when vibratory driving occurs; and
     In absence of site specific underwater acoustic 
propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to 
determine the ZOI.

Steller Sea Lion

    Steller sea lions are common in the project area and may be 
encountered daily. Pinniped population estimates are typically made 
when the animals are hauled out and available to be counted. There have 
been numerous counts of Steller sea lions in this area over the past 
few years. Aerial surveys from 2004 through 2006 indicated peak winter 
(October-April) counts at the Dog Bay float ranging from 27 to 33 
animals (Wynne et al., 2011). More than 100 Steller sea lions were 
counted on the Dog Bay float at times in spring 2015, although the mean 
number was much smaller (Wynne 2015b). Counts in February 2015 during a 
site visit by HDR biologists ranged from approximately 28 to 45 Steller 
sea lions.
    According to ABR (2016), however, maximal weekly counts of sea 
lions at Dog Bay float were only loosely correlated with weekly 
average-hourly rates of sea lion observations within the construction 
area. Near Island Channel counts of Steller sea lions adjacent to Pier 
1 have ranged from zero to approximately 25 sea lions at one time (FHWA 
and DOT&PF 2015). More recent counts completed between November 2015 
and June 2016 by protected species observers (PSOs) working on the 
Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project (approximately 100 
m from the transient float) ranged from approximately 6 to 114 Steller 
sea lions, with an average of 33 (ABR 2016). It has been estimated that 
about 40 unique individual sea lions likely pass by the project site 
each day (Speckman 2015, Ward 2015, Wynne 2015a). Incidental take was 
estimated for Steller sea lions by conservatively assuming that, within 
any given day, approximately 40 unique individual Steller sea lions may 
be present at some time during that day within the Level B harassment 
zones during active pile extraction or installation.
    It is assumed that Steller sea lions may be present every day, and 
also that take will include multiple harassments of the same 
individual(s) both within and among days, which means that these 
estimates are likely an overestimate of the number of individuals.
    An estimated total of 480 Steller sea lions (40 sea lions/day * 12 
days of pile installation or extraction) could be exposed to noise at 
the Level B harassment level during vibratory and impact pile driving 
(Table 6).
    The attraction of sea lions to the seafood processing plant 
increases the possibility of individual Steller sea lions occasionally 
entering the Level A harassment zone (the largest injury zone is 5.5 m 
during down-hole drilling); however a minimum 10 m shutdown would be in 
effect for all construction methods, thereby eliminating the potential 
for Level A harassment. No

[[Page 79370]]

level A take is authorized for Steller sea lions.

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are expected to be encountered in low numbers within 
the project area. However, based on the known range of the South Kodiak 
stock, 13 single sightings during 110 days of monitoring of the Kodiak 
Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project, and occasional sightings 
during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, it 
is assumed that harbor seals could be present every day. This analysis 
conservatively assumes that harbor seals could be present on any one 
day during the 12 days of pile installation and removal. Using this 
number, it is estimated that 48 harbor seals could be exposed to noise 
at the level B harassment level during in-water construction activities 
(Table 6). We assumed three harbor seals (the maximum number of seals 
observed during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project 
over 110 days of monitoring) may be seen in Near Island Channel for 36 
takes, and included an additional one seal per day that may be present 
in the larger 120 dB zone for an additional 12 seals.
    The shutdown zone for harbor seals is 50 m for all construction 
methods. Because this shutdown zone covers the entire injury zone (10 m 
for impact and vibratory, and 50 m for down-hole drilling), Level A 
harassment can be avoided. No level A take is authorized for harbor 
seals.

Harbor Porpoise

    Harbor porpoises are expected to be encountered in low numbers 
within the project area. Based on the known range of the Gulf of Alaska 
stock, six sightings of singles or pairs only during 110 days of 
monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements project, 
and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other 
locations on Kodiak Island, it is assumed that harbor porpoises could 
be present every day. Dahlheim (2009, 2015) states that the average 
group size of harbor porpoise is between one and two individuals. To be 
conservative, we assumed groups of two animals may be seen on any given 
day. NMFS proposes 24 Level B takes (two animals on 12 days) of harbor 
porpoises by exposure to underwater noise over the duration of 
construction activities (Table 6).
    A shutdown zone of 100 m would be established for all construction 
methods for harbor porpoise. The largest injury zone is 64.6 m (rounded 
to 100 m) for this species; therefore, level A take can be avoided. No 
Level A take is authorized for harbor porpoise.

Dall's Porpoise

    Dall's porpoises are expected to be encountered within the project 
area rarely. Although no sightings of Dall's porpoise occurred during 
110 days monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements 
Project, the project area is within the known range of the Gulf of 
Alaska stock and they have been observed at other locations on Kodiak 
Island. This project also includes a narrow band that will be 
ensonified extending to Woody Island, where Dall's porpoise may be 
present. There is minimal information on group sizes of this species in 
the Kodiak area. Dahlheim (2009) noted mean group size of Dall's 
porpoise in Southeast Alaska between the Spring and Fall of 1991-2007 
ranged from 2.51 to 5.46 animals, with average group sizes between 2.77 
and 3.55. OBIS SEAMAP states that Dall's porpoise usually form small 
groups between two and 12 individuals, and had two observations of 
Dall's porpoise near Kodiak Island with group sizes of one and two 
individuals (Halpin 2009 at OBIS-SEAMAP 2016). We therefore, 
conservatively, assume that Dall's porpoises with an average group size 
of seven individuals could be present in the area every other day of 
in-water construction. NMFS proposes 42 Dall's porpoise level B takes 
(7 animal/day * 6 days of pile activity).
    No Level A takes are requested for this species. No Level A take is 
expected since Dall's porpoise are uncommon in the area, preferring 
deeper waters, and there would be a 100 m shutdown for all construction 
methods for Dall's porpoise to further reduce the likelihood of injury.

Killer Whale

    Killer whales are expected to be in the Kodiak harbor area 
sporadically from January through April and to enter the project area 
in low numbers. Four killer whale pods were observed during 110 days of 
monitoring for the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project 
with the largest pod size of seven individuals. NMFS estimates that pod 
of seven individual whales may enter the project area twice during the 
12 days of pile installation and removal. NMFS therefore proposes 14 
Level B takes (7 killer whales/visit * 2 days) of killer whales by 
exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction 
activities. No Level A take is requested under this authorization, 
since the injury zones are very small (10 m for all methods), and it is 
unlikely a killer whale would come that close to the piles. NMFS also 
expects that construction could be shut down before the whales enter 
the Level A harassment area.

Humpback Whale

    Humpback whales are rare in the action area. One solitary animal 
was observed in March 2016 during 110 days monitoring of the Kodiak 
Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project. Conservatively, it 
assumed that one individual could be present in the area on half of the 
days of in-water construction. NMFS therefore proposes six Level B 
takes (Table 6). Because humpback whales are rare in the area, and 
there would be a 100 m shutdown in place that covers the injury zones 
(10 m for impact and vibratory, and 100 m for down-hole drilling), no 
Level A takes are authorized for this species.
    Based on Wade et al. (2016), the probability is that five of the 
humpback whales that would be taken through Level B acoustic harassment 
would be from the Hawaii DPS (not listed under ESA), one humpback whale 
would be from threatened Mexico DPS, and no humpback whales would be 
from the endangered Western North Pacific DPS.

     Table 6--Summary of the Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to Level A and Level B
                                             Harassment Noise Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Level B
                             Species                                  Level A       harassment         Total
                                                                   injury takes        takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion................................................               0             480             480
Harbor seal.....................................................               0              48              48
Harbor porpoise.................................................               0              24              24
Dall's porpoise.................................................               0              42              42
Killer whale....................................................               0              14              14

[[Page 79371]]

 
Humpback whale..................................................               0               6               6
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................               0             614             614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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). 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,'' 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, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on 
habitat, and the status of the species.
    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all 
the species listed in Table 6, given that the anticipated effects of 
this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be 
relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size, 
status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a 
different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors 
would be identified and analyzed.
    Pile extraction, pile driving, and down-hole drilling activities 
associated with the reconstruction of the transient float, as outlined 
previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. 
Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form 
of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) from underwater sounds 
generated from pile driving and drilling. Potential takes could occur 
if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when 
in-water construction is under way.
    The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential 
behavioral disturbance. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is 
anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to 
minimize the possibility of serious injury to marine mammals. These 
noise exposures may cause behavioral modification to a small number of 
each affected marine mammal species. However, the City's proposed 
activities are fairly localized and of short duration, and the noise 
exposures are therefore expected to be localized and short-term. The 
entire project area is limited to the transient float area and its 
immediate surroundings with only a small band extending out to Woody 
Island. Actions covered under the Authorization would include 
extracting 19 12-inch steel piles and installing 12 24-inch steel piles 
to support the replacement float and gangway. Specifically, the use of 
impact driving will be limited to an estimated maximum of one hour over 
the course of 12 days of construction, and will likely require less 
time. Each 24-inch pile will require about two to five blows of an 
impact hammer to confirm that piles are set into bedrock for a maximum 
time expected of three minutes of impact hammering per pile. Vibratory 
driving will be necessary for an estimated maximum of eight hours and 
down-hole drilling will require a maximum of 48 hours. The likelihood 
that marine mammals will be detected by trained observers is high under 
the environmental conditions described for the reconstruction of the 
transient float. Therefore, the proposed mitigation and monitoring 
measures are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury and behavior 
exposures.
    No important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals 
are known to be near the proposed action area. The project also is not 
expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine 
mammals' habitat, including Steller sea lion critical habitat. The 
project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The 
activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus 
temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a 
limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short 
duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat 
that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not 
expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
    Sea lions are common in the Kodiak harbor area the possibility 
exists that some of these sea lions are already hearing-impaired or 
deaf (Wynne 2014). Fishermen have been known to protect their gear and 
catches by using ``seal bombs'' in an effort to disperse sea lions away 
from fishing gear. Sound levels produced by seal bombs are well above 
levels that are known to cause TTS (temporary loss of hearing), and 
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS, partial or full loss of hearing) in 
marine mammals (Wynne 2014). The use of seal bombs requires appropriate 
permits from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 
Although no studies have been published that document hearing-impaired 
sea lions in the area, this possibility is important to note as it 
pertains to mitigation measures that will be effective for this 
project.
    Sea lions in the Kodiak harbor area are habituated to fishing 
vessels and are skilled at gaining access to fish. It is likely that 
some of the same animals follow local vessels to the nearby fishing 
grounds and back to town. It is also likely that hearing-impaired or 
deaf sea lions are among the sea lions that attend the seafood 
processing facility nearby the transient float construction site. It is 
not known how a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would respond to 
typical mitigation efforts at a construction site such as ramping up of 
pile-driving equipment. It is also unknown whether a hearing-impaired 
or deaf sea lion would avoid pile-driving activity, or whether such an 
animal might approach closely, without responding to or being impacted 
by the noise level. Therefore, any additional auditory injury 
associated with the transient float project would be unlikely.
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of

[[Page 79372]]

reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar 
activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased 
swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if 
such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; Lerma 
2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from the sound 
source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, 
although even this reaction has been observed primarily only in 
association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory driving, 
pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to human activity in 
industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to orient towards and 
sometimes move towards the sound. The pile extraction and driving 
activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, 
numerous construction activities conducted in other similar locations, 
including the nearby Pier 1 Kodiak ferry terminal (approximately 100 m 
away), which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to 
marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from 
behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of 
sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in 
hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, 
even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall 
stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in 
fitness for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any 
adverse impact to the stock as a whole.
    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the 
following factors: (1) The possibility of non-auditory injury, serious 
injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the 
anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, 
temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the short duration of in-water 
construction activities (12 days), and; (4) the presumed efficacy of 
the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the 
specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In 
combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available 
body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the 
potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term 
effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to 
impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result 
in population-level impacts.
    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 City's Kodiak transient float replacement project 
will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Small Numbers Analysis

    Table 7 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to 
received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B harassment 
for the proposed work at the transient float project site. Our analysis 
shows that between <1 percent--2.39 percent of the populations of 
affected stocks that could be taken by harassment. Therefore, the 
numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be 
considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if 
each estimated taking occurred to a new individual--an extremely 
unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions, 
occurring in the vicinity of the transient float, there will almost 
certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these 
takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall 
regional stock.

       Table 7--Estimated Numbers and Percentage of Stock That May Be Exposed to Level A and B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Proposed
                                                                    authorized         Stock       Percentage of
                             Species                                Level A and      abundance      total stock
                                                                   Level B takes     estimate           (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus)
    wDPS........................................................             480          49,497            0.97
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)
    South Kodiak stock..........................................              48          19,199            0.25
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
    Gulf of Alaska stock........................................              24          31,046            0.08
Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)
    Alaska stock................................................              42          83,400            0.05
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)
    Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident stock.................              14           2,347             0.6
    Eastern North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and                              587            2.39
     Bering Sea stock...........................................
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
    Central North Pacific Stock.................................               6          10,103            0.06
    Western North Pacific Stock.................................                           1,107            0.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis contained herein NMFS preliminarily finds 
that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the 
populations of the affected species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources 
in the Kodiak area for many hundreds of years, particularly Steller sea 
lions and harbor seals. No traditional subsistence hunting areas are 
within the project vicinity, however; the nearest haulouts and 
rookeries for Steller sea lions and harbor seals are the Long Island, 
Cape Chiniak, and Ugak Island haul-outs and the Marmot Island rookery, 
many miles away. These locations are, respectively 4, 13, 25 and 28 nmi 
distant from the project area. Since all project activities will take 
place within the immediate vicinity of the transient float site, the 
project will not have an adverse impact on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence use at locations farther away. No disturbance 
or displacement of sea lions or harbor seals from traditional hunting 
areas by activities associated with the transient project is expected. 
No changes to availability of subsistence resources will result from

[[Page 79373]]

transient float replacement project activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are two marine mammal species that are listed as endangered 
under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area: 
the WNP DPS and Mexico DPS of humpback whale and the western DPS of 
Steller sea lion. The project location is also within critical habitat 
of two major haulouts closest to the project area: Long Island and Cape 
Chiniak, which are approximately 4.6 nmi (8.5 km) and 13.8 nmi (25.6 
km) away from the project site, respectively. There are no rookeries 
within 20 mi of the project location. In October 2016, NMFS initiated 
formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. The Biological Opinion 
will analyze the effects to ESA listed species, including Steller sea 
lions and humpback whales, as well as critical habitat.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will consider 
comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. 
The EA will be posted at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm once it is finalized.

Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to the City of Kodiak for the Kodiak Transient Float 
Replacement Project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed 
IHA language is provided next.
    1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from 
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for in-water construction work 
associated with the Kodiak Transient Float Replacement Project.

    3. General Conditions

    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the City, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    (b) The species authorized for taking include harbor porpoise 
(Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), killer whale 
(Orcinus orca), Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Steller sea 
lion (Eumatopius jubatus), and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii).
    (c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the 
species listed in condition 3(b).
    (d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or 
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) or any taking of 
any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the 
modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
    (e) The City shall conduct briefings between construction 
supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and staff prior 
to the start of all in-water pile driving, and when new personnel join 
the work.

    4. Mitigation Measures

    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the 
following mitigation measures:
    (a) Time Restriction: For all in-water pile driving activities, the 
City shall operate only during daylight hours when visual monitoring of 
marine mammals can be conducted. To minimize impacts to pink salmon 
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry and coho salmon (O. kisutch) smolt, the 
City will refrain from impact pile driving from May 1, 2017 through 
June 30, 2017. If work occurs from May 1 through June 30, it will occur 
in evenings during daylight hours, after the 12-hour period that begins 
civil dawn.
    (b) Establishment of Level B Harassment (ZOI): Before the 
commencement of in-water pile driving activities, the City shall 
establish Level B behavioral harassment ZOI where received underwater 
sound pressure levels (SPLs) are higher than 120 dB (rms) re 1 
[micro]Pa for and non-pulse sources (vibratory hammer and drilling) and 
160 dB (rms) for pulse sources (impact hammer). The ZOI delineates 
where Level B harassment would occur. The Level B harassment area 
extends out to 6,846 m for down-hole drilling (rounded to 7000 m), 821 
m for vibratory driving (rounded to 900 m), and 183 m for impact 
driving (rounded to 200 m).

    (c) Establishment of Shutdown Zone

    (i) For all pile driving activities, the City will establish 
shutdown zones. Shutdown zones are intended to contain the area in 
which SPLs equal or exceed the acoustic injury criteria for each marine 
mammal hearing group, with the purpose being to define an area within 
which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal 
(or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus 
preventing injury of marine mammals. The shutdown zones would be 10 m 
for Steller sea lions and killer whales, 100 m for humpback whales, 
harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise, and 50 m harbor seals.
    (d) The Level A and Level B harassment zones will be monitored 
throughout the time required to install or extract a pile. If a harbor 
seal, Steller sea lion, harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer whale, 
or humpback whale is observed entering the Level B harassment zone, a 
Level B exposure will be recorded and behaviors documented. That pile 
segment will be completed without cessation, unless the animal 
approaches the Level A shutdown zone. Pile installation or extraction 
will be halted immediately before the animal enters the Level A zone.
    (e) If any marine mammal species other than those listed in 
condition 3(b) enters or approaches the Level B zone (including, but 
not limited to grey whales and fin whales), all activities will shut 
down.
    (f) Use of Ramp Up/Soft Start

    (i) The project will utilize soft start techniques for all impact 
pile driving. We require the City to initiate sound from impact hammers 
with an initial set of three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 
1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets.
    (ii) Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's 
impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile 
driving of 30 minutes or longer.
    (iii) If a marine mammal is present within the shutdown zone, 
ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the Level A 
harassment zone. Activity will begin only after the MMO has determined, 
through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the Level A 
harassment zone.
    (iv) If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, Dall's 
porpoise, killer whale, or humpback whale is present in the Level B 
harassment zone, ramping up will begin and a Level B take will be 
documented. Ramping up will occur when these species are in the Level B 
harassment zone whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A 
zone, or from outside the project area.
    (v) If any marine mammal other than Steller sea lions, harbor seal, 
harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer whale, or humpback whale is 
present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed 
until the animal(s) leaves the zone. Ramping up will begin only after 
the MMO has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved 
outside the harassment zone.
    (g) Pile Caps: Pile caps or cushions will be used during all impact 
pile-driving activities.


[[Page 79374]]


    (h) Standard Mitigation Measures

    (i) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or 
clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine 
mammal comes within 10 meters, operations shall cease and vessels shall 
reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and 
safe working conditions.
    (i) The City shall establish monitoring locations as described 
below.

    5. Monitoring and Reporting

    The holder of this Authorization is required to report all 
monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the 
completion of the marine mammal monitoring.

    (a) Visual Marine Mammal Monitoring and Observation

    (i) At least one individual meeting the minimum qualifications 
below will monitor the shutdown zones and Level A and Level B 
harassment zones during impact and vibratory pile driving, and down-
hole drilling.
    Requirements when choosing MMOs for construction actions are as 
follows:
    a. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required.
    b. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    c. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree 
in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
    d. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer.
    e. We will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
    Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, with the following minimum 
qualifications:
    a. Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
    b. Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according 
to assigned protocols
    c. Experience or training in the field identification of marine 
mammals, including the identification of behaviors
    d. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations
    e. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations 
including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals 
observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were 
suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound 
of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine 
mammal behavior
    f. Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary.
    (ii) During drilling, pile driving, and extraction, the shutdown 
zone, as described in 4(b), will be monitored and maintained. Pile 
installation or extraction will not commence or will be suspended 
temporarily if any marine mammals are observed within or approaching 
the area of potential disturbance.
    (iii) The area within the Level B harassment threshold for pile 
driving and extraction will be monitored by observers stationed to 
provide adequate view of the harassment zone. Marine mammal presence 
within this Level B harassment zone, if any, will be monitored. Pile 
driving activity will not be stopped if marine mammals are found to be 
present. Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment 
zone would constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded 
and reported as such.
    (iv) The individuals will scan the waters within each monitoring 
zone activity using binoculars, spotting scopes and visual observation.
    (v) If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' 
ability to make observations within the marine mammal shutdown zones 
(e.g. excessive wind or fog), in-water construction activities will 
cease until conditions allow monitoring to resume.
    (vi) The waters will be scanned 30 minutes prior to commencing pile 
driving at the beginning of each day, and prior to commencing pile 
driving after any stoppage of 30 minutes or greater. If marine mammals 
enter or are observed within the designated marine mammal shutdown zone 
during or 30 minutes prior to impact pile driving, the monitors will 
notify the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal 
has moved outside the designated radius.
    (vii) The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 30 
minutes after pile driving has completed each day.

    (b) Data Collection

    (i) Observers are required to use approved data forms. Among other 
pieces of information, the City will record detailed information about 
any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to 
the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting 
behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the City will attempt to 
distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the 
number of incidents of take. At a minimum, the following information be 
collected on the sighting forms:
    a. Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
    b. Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
    c. Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
    d. Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
    e. Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine 
mammals;
    f. Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, 
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile 
driving activity;
    g. Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and 
distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
    h. Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
    i. Other human activity in the area.

    (c) Reporting Measures

    (i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, 
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality 
(e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), the City 
would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report 
the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding 
Coordinators. The report would include the following information:
    a. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    b. Name and type of vessel involved;
    c. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
    d. Description of the incident;
    e. Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    f. Water depth;
    g. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    h. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    i. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    j. Fate of the animal(s); and
    k. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is 
available).

[[Page 79375]]

    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the City to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The City would not be able 
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
    (ii) In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead MMO 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 described in the next paragraph), 
the City would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
and the Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the same information 
identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue 
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work 
with the City to determine whether modifications in the activities are 
appropriate.
    (iii) In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is 
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the City would report the incident 
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or 
by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours 
of the discovery. The City would provide photographs or video footage 
(if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting 
to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
    6. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if 
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible 
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

                                        Table 1--Authorized Take Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Level B
                             Species                              Level A injury    harassment         Total
                                                                       takes           takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion................................................               0             480             480
Harbor seal.....................................................               0              48              48
Harbor porpoise.................................................               0              24              24
Dall's porpoise.................................................               0              42              42
Killer whale....................................................               0              14              14
Humpback whale..................................................               0               6               6
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................               0             614             614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Public Comments

    NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and 
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for the City's Kodiak 
Transient Float Replacement Project. Please include with your comments 
any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final 
decision on the City's request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: November 4, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-27126 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P