Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Cook Inlet Pipeline Cross Inlet Extension Project, 19224-19236 [2018-09242]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19224-19236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09242]



[[Page 19224]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF957


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

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
Harvest Alaska, LLC (Harvest), to incidentally take, by Level B 
harassment, eight species of marine mammals incidental to oil and gas 
pipeline installation activities associated with the Cook Inlet 
Pipeline Cross Inlet Extension Project (CIPL), Cook Inlet, Alaska.

DATES: The IHA is valid from April 25, 2018, through April 24, 2019.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability

    An electronic copy of the IHA and supporting documents, as well as 
a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online 
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. In case of problems 
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed 
authorization is provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth.
    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an 
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.
    NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as an impact resulting from the specified activity:
    (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a 
level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) 
Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) 
directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical 
barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
    (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to 
increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs 
to be met.
    The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, 
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine 
mammal.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    Accordingly, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 
consider the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of the 
proposed IHA and, on April 25, 2018, issued an associated Finding of No 
Significant Impact. NMFS' EA and FONSI are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111.

Description of Proposed Activity

    The proposed CIPL project includes the installation of two new 
steel subsea pipelines in the waters of Cook Inlet. Work includes 
moving subsea obstacles out of the pipeline corridor, pulling two 
pipelines (one oil, one gas) into place on the seafloor, securing 
pipelines with sandbags, and connecting the pipelines to the existing 
Tyonek platform. The positioning and installation of the offshore 
pipeline would be accomplished using a variety of pipe pulling, 
positioning, and securing methods supported by dive boats, tug boats, 
and/or barges and winches. Work would be limited to the pipeline 
corridor from Ladd Landing to the Tyonek Platform and could occur for 
up to 108 days. The installation of the subsea pipelines, specifically 
presence of and noise generated from work vessels, has the potential to 
take marine mammals by harassment. NMFS has authorized Harvest to take 
small numbers of eight species of marine mammals incidental to the 
project.

Dates and Duration

    The CIPL project will take place for approximately 108 days if able 
to work without interruption (e.g., weather delays). Work will be 
staged with repositioning of obstacles (e.g., boulders) lasting 
approximately 15 days, pipe pulling lasting approximately 11 days 
(weather permitting) and the remainder of the project, including 
equipment mobilization, pipeline securing, pipeline connection to the 
Tyonek platform, and demobilization constituting the remainder of the 
108 day project.

Specific Geographic Region

    Cook Inlet is a complex Gulf of Alaska estuary (as described in 
BOEM 2016) that covers roughly 7,700 square miles (mi\2\; 20,000 square 
kilometers (km\2\)), with approximately 840 miles (mi) (1,350 linear 
kilometer (km)) of coastline (Rugh et al., 2000). Cook Inlet is 
generally divided into upper and lower regions by the East and West 
Forelands (see Figure 1-1 in Harvest's application). Northern Cook 
Inlet bifurcates into Knik Arm to the north and Turnagain Arm to the 
east. Overall, Cook Inlet is shallow, with an area-weighted mean depth 
of 148 feet (ft) (44.7 meters (m)). The physical oceanography of Cook 
Inlet is characterized by complex circulation with variability at 
tidal, seasonal, annual, and inter-annual timescales

[[Page 19225]]

(Musgrave and Statscewich, 2006). This region has the fourth largest 
tidal range in the world and as a result, extensive tidal mudflats that 
are exposed at low tides occur throughout Cook Inlet, especially in the 
upper reaches. These tides are also the driving force of surface 
circulation. Strong tidal currents drive the circulation in the greater 
Cook Inlet area with average velocities ranging from 1.5 to 3 m per 
second (3 to 6 knots).
    The project area is located a few km north of the village of Tyonek 
between Ladd Landing and the Tyonek Platform (see Figure 1-2 of 
Harvest's application). On April 11, 2011, NMFS designated beluga whale 
(Delphinapterus leucas) critical habitat in the action area. Critical 
habitat includes known fall and winter Cook Inlet beluga whale foraging 
and transiting areas (see Figure 4-1 in Harvest's application).

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    A complete description of the specified activity may be found in 
our notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 8437; February 27, 2018) and a 
summary is provided below. No changes to the proposed project have 
occurred since publication of that notice.
    The project includes the installation of two new steel subsea 
pipelines in the waters of Cook Inlet: A 10-inch (in) nominal diameter 
gas pipeline (Tyonek W 10) between the Tyonek Platform and the Beluga 
Pipeline (BPL) Junction, and the 8-in nominal diameter oil pipeline 
(Tyonek W 8) between the existing Tyonek Platform and Ladd Landing. 
Pipelines installation activities would be conducted in phases and 
include moving subsea obstacles out of the pipeline corridor, pulling 
two pipelines (one oil, one gas) into place on the seafloor, securing 
pipelines with sandbags, and connecting the pipelines to the existing 
Tyonek platform. The positioning and installation of the offshore 
pipeline would be accomplished using a variety of pipe pulling, 
positioning, and securing methods supported by dive boats, tug boats, 
and/or barges and winches. The barge would be relocated approximately 
two to three times per day. Work would be limited to the pipeline 
corridor from Ladd Landing to the Tyonek Platform and could occur for 
up to 108 days. Table 1 contains construction scenarios during the 
phased project and associated use duration.

    Table 1--Construction Scenarios, Associated Equipment and Estimated Source Levels During the 108-Day CIPL
                                                     Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Approximate
         Project component/scenario                      Noise source                duration       Approximate
                                                                                      (days)       hours per day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obstruction Removal and Pipeline pulling     Tug (120 ft) x 2...................              68           10-12
 (subtidal).
                                             Dive boat \1\......................              28               9
                                             Sonar boat \2\.....................               9              12
                                             Work boat (120 ft) \1\.............              68               9
                                             Crew boat (48 ft) \1\..............              68               9
                                             Barge anchoring \3\................  ..............  ..............
Pipeline pulling (intertidal)..............  Tug x 2............................              16           10-12
                                             Barge anchoring Crew boat..........              16  ..............
Trenching (transition zone)................  Tug x 2............................              10              12
                                             Backhoe/bucket dredge \4\ (beach-                10              12
                                              based).
Mid-line Pipeline Tie-In Work..............  Tug x 2............................               7           10-12
                                             Dive boat..........................               4               9
                                             Work boat..........................               7              12
                                             Barge anchoring....................               7               6
Connections of Tyonek Platform.............  Tug x 2............................               7           10-12
                                             Work boat..........................               7               8
                                             Dive boat..........................               7               9
                                             Underwater tools (hydraulic wrench,               7      30 minutes
                                              pneumatic grinder, and pressure
                                              washer).
Total Duration \5\.........................  Tug x 2............................             108  ..............
                                             Dive boat..........................              39  ..............
                                             Sonar boat.........................               9  ..............
                                             Work/crew boat.....................             108  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The dive boat, crew boat, and work boat durations are shorter than tugs because they would be tied to the
  barge most of the time. Main engines would not be running while tied up, but a generator and compressors would
  be running to support diving operations.
\2\ Sonar boat engine noise only. Sonar equipment would operate at frequencies over 200 kHz.
\3\ Barge is equipped with four anchors.
\4\ Backhoe and tug will be used approximately 2-4 hours per low/slack tide to complete transition zone
  installation.
\5\ Total time does not include allowance of 6 weather days because vessels would not operating during those
  days.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on 
February 27, 2018 (83 FR 8437) for public comment. During the 30-day 
public comment period, NMFS received comment letters from the Marine 
Mammal Commission (Commission) and a group of students from the 
University of Arizona (Students). The public comment letters received 
on the notice of proposed IHA are available on the internet at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. Following is a summary of the 
public comments and NMFS' responses.
    Comment 1: The Commission acknowledged that the activities will 
likely have lesser impacts than other sound-producing activities but 
indicated that NMFS should explain why the activities, in combination 
with ongoing and other planned activities in Cook Inlet, would affect 
only a small number of Cook Inlet beluga whales and have no more than a 
negligible impact on the population.
    NMFS Response: In accordance with the MMPA and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(c), and as described in this notice, we 
use the best available scientific evidence to determine whether the 
taking of marine

[[Page 19226]]

mammals by the specified activity within the specified geographic 
region will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock. 
The MMPA requires these findings be made with respect to the specified 
activity contained within an applicant's request for authorization. 
However, our negligible impact finding considers the potential impact 
of the specified activity in consideration of the status of the stock 
and existing threats. That is, the impacts from other past and ongoing 
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into the negligible impact 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., 
density/distribution and status of the species, population size and 
growth rate, and ambient noise). Here, as acknowledged by the 
Commission, the potential impact of the specified activity is low. 
Moreover, the IHA contains a number of mitigation and monitoring 
measures designed to minimize, reducing both frequency of take and 
intensity of take (which is already low). Further, as described here, 
we have compared the number of take to the stock abundance and 
determined that we are authorizing take of a small number of marine 
mammals per stock.
    NMFS has made the necessary findings to issue the IHA to Harvest 
for take of marine mammals incidental to their pipeline installation 
activities. Nonetheless, NMFS agrees that caution is appropriate in the 
management of impacts on this small resident beluga population with 
declining abundance and constricted range. Accordingly, NMFS is 
requiring that Harvest submit weekly and monthly reports on their daily 
marine mammal monitoring efforts. Consistent with our implementing 
regulations, if NMFS determines that the level of taking is having or 
may have a more than negligible impact on a species or stock, NMFS may 
suspend or modify an LOA, as appropriate, following notice and comment.
    Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS include take 
authorization for California sea lions, increase the number of 
authorized takes of harbor porpoises from 10 to at least 72, and 
require Harvest to notify NMFS immediately if the numbers of takes 
approach the authorized limits for any species.
    NMFS Response: NMFS has reviewed a suite of industry monitoring 
reports, NMFS marine mammal survey data, and NMFS anecdotal sighting 
database in consideration of the Commission's comments with respect to 
all species proposed for authorization and determined that an 
adjustment of take numbers for almost all species was warranted to 
ensure the numbers of authorized takes for the project was sufficient 
given the nature of the project (i.e., some activities cannot be 
stopped once begun). We refer the reader to the ``Estimated Take'' 
section below for details on how the new take numbers were calculated. 
Specific to the Commission's comment on harbor porpoise, NMFS 
authorized the take of 100 individuals in the IHA based on 2012 
industry survey reports (which NMFS notes indicate an unusually large 
number of sightings compared to multiple and more recent survey years). 
NMFS has also added takes and associated analysis of California sea 
lions and gray whales included the recommended notification measure 
should Harvest approach take limits for any marine mammal species.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommended, after reviewing proposed 
changes to the monitoring plan (see Monitoring and Reporting section), 
that NMFS require Harvest to deploy an additional protected species 
observer (PSO) on an alternate vessel located on the opposite side of 
the Level B harassment zone from the proposed land- or platform-based 
observer.
    NMFS Response: The Commission's comment reflect a concern for 
marine mammal detectability during the time activities are occurring in 
the middle of the project corridor between land and the Tyonek 
Platform. NMFS agrees detection at these distances is problematic; 
however, we disagree that placing another vessel on the water (which 
introduces additional underwater noise) is the appropriate response to 
addressing this issue. Instead, NMFS is requiring Harvest to place an 
observer at Ladd Landing and the Tyonek platform (concurrently) when 
pipelines installation activities occur 2 to 6.5 km from shore. 
Further, the PSO(s) would be in constant contact with vessel captains 
and crew and NMFS has included an additional monitoring measure 
requiring vessel-based crew to report any marine mammal sighting to the 
PSO.
    Comment 4: The Commission requested clarification of certain issues 
associated with NMFS's notice that one-year renewals could be issued in 
certain limited circumstances and expressed concern that the process 
would bypass the public notice and comment requirements. The Commission 
also suggested that NMFS should discuss the possibility of renewals 
through a more general route, such as a rulemaking, instead of notice 
in a specific authorization. The Commission further recommended that if 
NMFS did not pursue a more general route, that the agency provide the 
Commission and the public with a legal analysis supporting our 
conclusion that this process is consistent with the requirements of 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
    NMFS Response: The process of issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 
the public notice and comment requirements of the MMPA. The notice of 
the proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain, 
limited conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an 
additional year. The notice describes the conditions under which such a 
renewal request could be considered and expressly seeks public comment 
in the event such a renewal is sought. Importantly, such renewals would 
be limited to where the activities are identical or nearly identical to 
those analyzed in the proposed IHA, monitoring does not indicate 
impacts that were not previously analyzed and authorized, and the 
mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which 
allow the public to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a 
renewal at the same time the public provides comments on the initial 
IHA. NMFS has modified the language for future proposed IHAs to clarify 
that all IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one 
year and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a project 
at this time (the latter accomplished by using the word ``second''). In 
addition, notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA would be 
published in the Federal Register, as are all IHAs. Lastly, NMFS will 
publish on our website a description of the renewal process before any 
renewal is issued utilizing the new process.
    Comment 5: The Students were concerned marine mammals access may be 
blocked by the project provided pipe segments, which are 2.5 mi long, 
and requested more information on mitigation measures designed to 
ensure animals have access to important foraging areas in the northern 
inlet.
    NMFS Response: The project would not create physical barriers to 
accessing locations north and south of the project area. The pipelines 
would be pulled along the sea floor and the presence of the limited 
number of vessels involved in the project would not block access. 
Acoustically, we anticipate the highest noise levels to occur at the 
vessel and barge locations, not within an entire 2.5 mi stretch in any 
particular moment in time. As described in our Federal Register notice, 
we believe animals will detour around the project site but more 
specifically, around the work vessels generating the most amount of 
noise.

[[Page 19227]]

Furthermore, the noise levels are not particularly high, and belugas 
are accustomed to industrial noises such as at the Port of Anchorage. 
There is ample evidence that construction noise at the Port of 
Anchorage, including impact pile driving, does not deter belugas from 
accessing critical foraging area higher in Knik Arm. Through the IHA, 
Harvest is also required to implement a number of mitigation measures 
designed to minimize both the frequency and degree of impact. These 
include lowering source levels of vessels at all times when full engine 
engagement is not required (e.g., idle, tie up to barge and shut-down) 
and to delay the onset of activities if animals are observed within or 
entering the Level B harassment zone. Lastly, Harvest is required to 
submit weekly monitoring reports to NMFS for the duration of the 
project. Should monitoring by Harvest indicate marine mammals are 
experiencing anything more than the expected impacts, NMFS would employ 
an adaptive management approach to ensure impacts are not beyond those 
anticipated.
    Comment 6: The Students expressed concern that information in the 
EA is not adequate to estimate amount of take and, specifically, harbor 
porpoise sightings have increased in recent years and should be 
considered.
    NMFS Response: NMFS refers the reader to our response to the 
Commission's comment regarding amount of take (Comment 2) and the 
``Estimated Take'' section.
    Comment 7: The Students indicated coordination with other agencies, 
local organizations, Inuit communities, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 
or other interest groups during development of the draft Environmental 
Assessment NMFS prepared for the project could result in a more 
effective project plan that could lessen the level B harassment on the 
marine mammals and allow for improved completion of the project.
    NMFS Response: NMFS provided both the proposed IHA and draft EA for 
public comment. The agencies, communities, and interest groups 
referenced had opportunity to comment during this time and, as 
indicated in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA, NMFS 
considered all comments prior to issuing the IHA and finalizing the EA. 
Moreover, the MMPA requires NMFS to prescribe mitigation measures that 
effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species and 
stocks, which we believe has been achieved.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    In the Federal Register notice announcing our proposed IHA (83 FR 
8437; February 27, 2018), we summarized available information regarding 
status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior 
and life history, of six of the potentially affected species. We have 
determined two additional species, the gray whale and California sea 
lion, have the potential, albeit unlikely, to enter into the project 
area. Due to the nature of the activities and the inability to stop 
some of the operational activities once they commence (e.g., pipe 
pulling or pushing the barge), we are including, in an abundance of 
caution, these species in the final IHA. Table 2 provides a summary of 
the status of these species.

                                            Table 2--Species With Potential Occurrence Within the Action Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name              Stock            ESA/MMPA status;       Nmin, most recent     PBR \3\   Annual M/
                                                                                       Strategic (Y/N) \1\   abundance survey) \2\               SI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus.  Eastern North Pacific.  -                     20,990 (0.05, 20125,          624        132
                                                                                                             2011).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae  Central North Pacific.  E;Y                   10,103 (0.3, 7890,             83         24
                                                                                                             2006).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas.  Cook Inlet............  E;Y                   312 (0.1, 287, 2014)..        UND          0
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca..........  Alaska Resident.......  -                     2,347 (unk, 2,347,             24          1
                                                                                                             2012).
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca..........  Gulf of Alaska,         -                     587 (unk, 587, 2012)..        5.9          1
                                                               Aleutian, Bering Sea
                                                               Transient.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena.....  Gulf of Alaska........  N;Y                   31,046 (0.214, N/A,           UND         72
                                                                                                             1998).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus....  Western U.S...........  E;Y                   50,983 (unk, 50,983,          306        236
                                                                                                             2015).
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus  U.S...................  -                     296,750 (n/a, 153,337,      9,200        389
                                                                                                             2014).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):

[[Page 19228]]

 
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina........  Cook Inlet/Shelikof     -                     27,386 (unk, 25,651,          770        234
                                                               Strait.                                       2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ UND is an undetermined Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    In summary, eight marine mammal species, including five cetaceans 
and three pinnipeds, may be found within Cook Inlet during the project 
(Table 2). These are the Cook Inlet beluga whale, humpback whale, gray 
whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, Steller sea lion and 
California sea lion. We refer the reader to the Federal Register notice 
for information regarding species previously considered. We provide a 
summary of the relevant information for the additional species (gray 
whale and California sea lion) below. Additional information regarding 
population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment 
Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information 
about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be 
found on NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/about/office-protected-resources).

Gray whales

    Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale migrates 
8,000 km (5,000 mi) northward from breeding lagoons in Baja California 
to feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi seas, reversing their 
travel again in the fall (Rice and Wolman, 1971). Their migration route 
is for the most part coastal until they reach the feeding grounds. A 
small portion of whales do not annually complete the full circuit, as 
small numbers can be found in the summer feeding along the Oregon, 
Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coasts (Rice et al., 1984, 
Moore et al., 2007).
    Most gray whales migrate past the mouth of Cook Inlet to and from 
northern feeding grounds. However, small numbers of summering gray 
whales have been observed within Cook Inlet, mostly in the lower inlet 
(e.g., Owl Ridge, 2014). Gray whales have not been observed in the 
upper inlet; however, seismic surveys encompassing the middle and upper 
inlet (including the project area) have observed gray whales. On June 
1, 2012, there were three gray whale sightings during marine mammal 
monitoring for a seismic survey; the survey area included the pipeline 
project area (SAE, 2012). It is not known if this was the same animal 
observed multiple times or multiple individuals. A lone gray whale was 
also observed near the middle inlet in 2014 and in May 2015, what was 
believed to be a gray whale based on blow shape was observed during 
marine mammal monitoring conducted for seismic surveys (SAE 2014, 
2015).
    Threats to this species include ship strike, entanglement in 
fishing gear, and increased human use of more northern latitudes as ice 
melts (Caretta et al., 2015).

California Sea Lions

    California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) are distributed along 
the North Pacific waters from central Mexico to southeast Alaska, with 
breeding areas restricted primarily to island areas off southern 
California (the Channel Islands), Baja California, and in the Gulf of 
California (Wright et al., 2010). The population is comprised of five 
genetically distinct populations: The United States population that 
breeds on offshore islands in California; the western Baja California 
population that breeds offshore along the west coast of Baja 
California, Mexico; and three populations (southern, central and 
northern) that breed in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Males migrate 
long distances from the colonies during the winter whereas females and 
juveniles remain close the breeding areas. The approximate growth rate 
for this species is 5.4 percent annually (Caretta et al., 2004).
    California sea lions are very rare in Cook Inlet and typically are 
not observed farther north than southeast Alaska. However, NMFS' 
anecdotal sighting database contains four California sea lion sightings 
in Seward and Kachemak Bay (pers. comm., Kate Savage, NMFS, March 27, 
2018). In addition, an industry survey report contains a sighting of 
two California sea lions in lower Cook Inlet; however, it is unclear if 
these animals were indeed California sea lions or a mis-identified 
Steller sea lions (SAE, 2012). Regardless, in an abundance of caution, 
we have included take for California sea lions in the final IHA.
    Threats to this species include incidental catch and entanglement 
in fishing gear, such as gillnets; biotoxins, as a result of harmful 
algal blooms; and gunshot wounds and other human-caused injuries, as 
California sea lions are sometimes viewed as a nuisance by commercial 
fishermen (NOAA 2016).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    In the ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine 
Mammals and Their Habitat'' section of the notice of proposed IHA (83 
FR 8437, February 27, 2018), NMFS included a qualitative discussion of 
the different ways that Harvest's pipelines installation activities may 
potentially affect marine mammals. The information contained in the 
notice has not changed. Please refer to that notice for the full 
discussion. Below we provide a summary.
    The CIPL project has the potential to harass marine mammals from 
exposure to noise from working vessels (e.g., tugs pushing barges) and 
construction activities such as removing obstacles from the pipeline 
path, pulling pipelines, anchoring the barge, divers

[[Page 19229]]

working underwater with noise-generating equipment, trenching, etc. In 
this case, NMFS considers potential harassment from the collective use 
of vessels working in a concentrated area for an extended period of 
time and noise created when moving obstacles, pulling pipelines, 
trenching in the intertidal transition zone, and moving the barge two 
to three times per day using two tugs. Essentially, the project area 
will become be a concentrated work area in an otherwise non-industrial, 
serene setting. In addition, the presence of the staging area on land 
and associated work close to shore may harass hauled-out seals and sea 
lions.
    We anticipate effects of the project to be limited to masking and 
behavioral disturbance (e.g., avoidance, cessation of vocalizations, 
increased swim speeds, etc.). We do not anticipate auditory threshold 
shift, permanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS), to occur due to low source 
levels and the fact marine mammals species are unlikely to be exposed 
for periods of time needed to incur the potential for PTS or TTS from 
the sources involved with pipeline installation. We also do not 
anticipate marine mammals transiting to an intended destination to 
abandon the effort; we expect the length of any detour around working 
vessels to be minimal.

Estimated Take

    This section provides the number of incidental takes authorized 
through the IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of ``small 
numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to multiple working vessels and construction 
activities in a concentrated area. For reasons described in the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA, Level A harassment is not 
anticipated or authorized. No mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take was quantified.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of 
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; 
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the authorized take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS uses acoustic thresholds 
that identify the received level of underwater sound above which 
exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally 
harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree 
(equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 1 micro pascal ([mu]Pa) (root 
means square (rms)) for continuous (e.g. vibratory pile-driving, 
drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive 
impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 
sonar) sources.
    Harvest's activity includes the use of multiple continuous sources 
and activities (e.g., vessels, pipe pulling) and therefore the 120 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold is applicable. As described above, in this 
case we believe it is not any one of these single sources alone that is 
likely to harass marine mammals, but a combination of sources and the 
physical presence of the equipment. We use this cumulative assessment 
approach below to identify ensonified areas and take estimates.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016b) identifies dual criteria to assess 
auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal 
groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise 
from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). 
Harvest's activity includes the use of non-impulsive (e.g., tugs 
pushing a barge, pipe pulling) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in the Table 3. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 19230]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02MY18.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds.
    When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition 
of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically 
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new 
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine 
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced will typically be 
overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A harassment. However, these tools offer the best 
way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available. NMFS will continue to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. Although vessels are mobile, we are 
considering them stationary for purposes of this project due to the 
confined area of work. For stationary sources, NMFS' User Spreadsheet 
predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at 
that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur 
PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and the resulting isopleths 
are reported below.
    The sources and activities involved with the CIPL project are 
relatively low compared to other activities for which NMFS typically 
authorizes take (e.g., seismic surveys, impact pile driving). However, 
these sources will be operating for extended periods and NMFS' PTS 
thresholds now incorporate a time component. That time component is 
based on both the duration of the activity and the likely amount of 
time an animal would be exposed. To determine if there is

[[Page 19231]]

potential for PTS from the CIPL project, we considered operations may 
occur throughout the day and night, and despite tugs being on stand-by 
for much of the time, a full day (24 hours) was the most conservative 
approach for estimating potential for PTS. Therefore, we used a source 
level of 170 dB measured at 1 m (estimated tug noise), a practical 
spreading loss model (15logR), and the weighting factor adjustment 
(WFA) for vibratory pile driving as a proxy for vessels (2.5 kHz). The 
distances to PTS thresholds considering a 24 hour exposure duration is 
provided in Table 4. Based on these results, we do not anticipate the 
nature of the work has the potential to cause PTS in any marine mammal 
hearing group; therefore, we do not anticipate auditory injury (Level A 
harassment) will occur.

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

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

Marine Mammal Occurrence

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

[[Page 19232]]



  Table 5--Density Estimates for Marine Mammals Potentially Present Within the Action Area Based on Cook Inlet-
                                       Wide NMFS Aerial Surveys 2001-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Estimated
                                                                     Number of                        density
                             Species                                  animals      Area (km\2\)       (number
                                                                                                  animals/km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI beluga whale.................................................               -               -       \1\ 0.001
Humpback whale..................................................             204          87,123          0.0023
Killer whale....................................................              70          87,123          0.0008
Harbor porpoise.................................................             377          87,123           0.004
Harbor seal.....................................................          23,912          87,123          0.2745
Steller sea lion................................................        \2\ 74.1          87,123         0.00085
Gray whale......................................................              10          87,123         0.00011
California sea lion \3\.........................................               0          87,123               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CI beluga whale density based on Goetz et al. (2012).
\2\ Actual counts of Steller sea lions was 741; however, it is well documented this species almost exclusively
  inhabits the lower inlet south of the Forelands with rare sightings in the northern inlet. Therefore, we
  adjusted the number of animals observed during the NMFS surveys (which cover the entire inlet) by 1/10 to
  account for this skewed concentration.
\3\ This species has not been documented in the project area during the referenced surveys; however, an
  occasional, rare sighting has been made during industry-supported surveys.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    The method for calculating take was described in the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA and is summarized here with a 
description of modifications. Take was first calculated using a 
density-based method (Take = density x ensonified area x project days). 
As an example, for beluga whales, the estimated take is calculated as 
24.03 km\2\ x 0.001 x 108 days for a total of 2.59 belugas. However, 
for this and other species, we also consider additional sighting data 
(e.g., industry surveys, anecdotal sightings), anticipated residency 
time, and group size. From that analysis, we derived an authorized take 
level. In general, the amount of authorized take is an increase from 
the proposed numbers. In consideration of the nature of project 
activities (inability to shut down for some activities), we determined 
an increase in take numbers was warranted. Table 6 provides the results 
from our final take analysis.

                   Table 6--Quantitative Assessment of Authorized Take, by Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Calculated     Average group    Authorized
                     Species                          Density         take\1\          size       take (Level B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI beluga whale.................................           0.001            2.59               8          \2\ 40
Humpback whale..................................          0.0023            5.07             1-2               5
Killer whale....................................          0.0008            1.77               5          \3\ 10
Harbor porpoise.................................           0.004            8.83         \4\ 1-3         \4\ 100
Harbor seal.....................................          0.2745          605.67        \5\ 1-10         \6\ 972
Steller sea lion................................         0.00085            1.88             1-2           \7\ 6
Gray whale......................................         0.00011           0.285               1           \8\ 5
California sea lion.............................               0               0               1           \9\ 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated Take = density x ensonifed area (24.03 km\2\) x # of project days (108).
\2\ The proposed take amount was 29 beluga whales which reflected the potential for one group of eight belugas
  per month or two groups of four animals per month. We increased to 40 authorized takes to account for
  possibility animals may be more frequent than originally assessed and to account for potential for one to two
  large group (up to 20 whales) to come within ensonified area during activities.
\3\ Adjusted take is based on two groups of five animals.
\4\ Average group size from Sheldon et al. 2014. Authorized take adjusted to account for known increase in
  harbor porpoise occurrence in upper Cook Inlet in recent years and is approximately 50% of the number of
  harbor porpoise observed during industry marine mammal surveys (n=190) near the action area.
\5\ Represents range of group sizes observed during a seismic survey in the middle Inlet from May 6 through
  September 30, 2012 (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2012).
\6\ The proposed IHA used density-based method for proposed take; however, we have adjusted based on the maximum
  of 9 harbor seals observed during aerial surveys in the project area based on NMFS aerial surveys from 1997-
  2011 (9 seals/day x 108 days = 972).
\7\ As in the proposed IHA, we consider the potential for 1-2 Steller sea lions to remain in the area for
  multiple days.
\8\ We have authorized five takes of gray whales in the rare chance they enter the ensonified area and
  operations cannot be shut down.
\9\ We have authorized five takes of California sea lions in the rare chance they enter the ensonified area and
  operations cannot be shut down.

    Cook Inlet beluga whales are expected to be transiting through the 
action area in group sizes ranging from 3 to 14 animals with an average 
of 8 animals/group. These group sizes are based on NMFS aerial surveys 
and anecdotal reports near Tyonek from April through October (pers 
comm. K Sheldon, January 25, 2018). Harvest requested take for up to 29 
beluga whales in anticipation that one group of 8 animals may pass 
through the action area once per month for the duration of the project 
(i.e., 8 animals/group x 1 group/month x 3.6 months). However, during 
the public comment period, we considered, in more detail, the number of 
animals that could pass through the action area during operations that 
could result in take. Specifically, a 2012 June monitoring report (SAE 
2012) reported an unusually high number of sightings are marine 
mammals, including many at river mouths south of the project area. If 
we consider the potential for those groups to move north to the Beluga 
River/Susitna, Knik and Turnigan Arm

[[Page 19233]]

areas, there is a possibility animals could enter Harvest's ensonified 
zone. If operations (e.g., pile pulling, barge moving) has already 
begun, these activities are not able to cease due to operational and 
safety concerns. Therefore, in the IHA, we have authorized up to 40 
beluga whales to be taken by Level B harassment.
    We also considered group size for other cetaceans. Killer whales 
have the potential to travel through the project area in groups 
exceeding the take calculated based on density. Because sighting data 
indicates killer whales are not common in the Upper Inlet, we 
anticipated one group to pass through the project area in the proposed 
IHA but have increased this to two groups for a total authorized take 
of 10 killer whales. For harbor porpoise, we considered the density-
based take calculation to be great enough to encompass their small 
group size (n=8); however, harbor porpoise sightings in the mid- to 
upper inlet have increased in recent years. Despite them typically 
occurring in the lower inlet, we have increased the authorized amount 
of take to 100 individuals, which is approximately 50 percent of the 
individuals observed during the 2012 industry survey (n = 190). We did 
not authorize the same amount of individuals observed considering the 
industry survey area was much larger than the harassment zone for the 
CIPL project and extended lower in the inlet where harbor porpoise are 
more common.
    Harbor seals and Steller sea lions are expected to occur as 
solitary animals or in small groups and may linger in the action area 
moreso than transiting cetaceans. Harbor seal takes estimates based on 
density reflect a likely occurrence, so we did not adjust authorized 
take levels. However, Steller sea lion density calculations produce an 
estimated take of one animal during the entire project. While Steller 
sea lions are rare in the action area, this species may not be solitary 
and may also remain in the action area for multiple days. In 2009, a 
Steller sea lion was observed three times during Port of Anchorage 
construction (ICRC 2009). During seismic survey marine mammal 
monitoring, Steller sea lions were observed in groups of one to two 
animals during two of three years of monitoring (Lomac-MacNair 2013, 
2015). Therefore, we increased the amount of take to six Steller sea 
lions to account for up to two animals to be observed over the course 
of three days (i.e., two animals exposed three times).
    Harvest did not request, and we did not propose, take for any other 
species in our proposed IHA notice. However, we have included take for 
gray whales and California sea lions in the final IHA. It is unlikely 
these species would come within the project area; however, in the 
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities 
section, we describe sightings of these species during industry surveys 
and anecdotal sightings. Because some activities may not be able to 
cease once they begin, we have authorized take for these species (Table 
6).

Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals

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

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental 
take authorizations to include information about the availability and 
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and 
manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks 
and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as 
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further 
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if 
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if 
implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation 
(probability implemented as planned) and;
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the

[[Page 19234]]

effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    NMFS anticipates the project will create an acoustic footprint 
above baseline of approximately 24 km\2\ around the concentration of 
vessels and operational activities. There is a discountable potential 
for marine mammals to incur PTS from the project as source levels are 
relatively low, non-impulsive, and animals would have to remain at very 
close distances for multiple hours, to accumulate acoustic energy at 
levels which could damage hearing. Therefore, we do not believe there 
is potential for Level A harassment and there is no designated shut-
down/exclusion zone established for this project. However, Harvest will 
implement a number of mitigation measures designed to reduce the 
potential for and severity of Level B harassment and minimize the 
acoustic footprint of the project.
    Harvest will establish a 2,200 m safety zone from working vessels 
and along the pipeline corridor and employ NMFS-approved protected 
species observers (PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for the 
duration of the project. Prior to commencing activities for the day or 
if there is a 30-minute lapse in operational activities, the PSO will 
monitor the safety zone for marine mammals for 30 minutes. If no marine 
mammals are observed, operations may commence. If a marine mammal(s) is 
observed within the safety zone during the clearing, the PSO will 
continue to watch until either: (1) The animal(s) is outside of and on 
a path away from the safety zone; or (2) 15 minutes have elapsed. Once 
the PSO has determined one of those conditions are met, operations may 
commence.
    Should a marine mammal be observed during pipe-pulling, the PSO 
will monitor and carefully record any reactions observed until the pipe 
is secure. No new operational activities would be started until the 
animal leaves the area. PSOs will also collect behavioral information 
on marine mammals beyond the safety zone.
    Other measures to minimize the acoustic footprint of the project 
include: The dive boat, sonar boat, work boat, and crew boat will be 
tied to the barge or anchored with engines off when practicable; all 
vessel engines will be placed in idle when not working if they cannot 
be tied up to the barge or anchored with engines off; and all sonar 
equipment will operate at or above 200 kHz.
    Finally, Harvest would abide by NMFS marine mammal viewing 
guidelines while operating vessels or land-based personnel (for hauled-
out pinnipeds); including not actively approaching marine mammals 
within 100 yards (in-water or on land) and slowing vessels to the 
minimum speed necessary. NMFS Alaska Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines 
may be found at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/mm-viewing-guide.
    The mitigation measures are designed to minimize Level B harassment 
by avoiding starting work while marine mammals are in the project area, 
lowering noise levels released into the environment through vessel 
operation protocol (e.g., tying vessels to barges, operating sonar 
equipment outside of marine mammal hearing ranges) and following NMFS 
marine mammal viewing guidelines. There are no known marine mammal 
feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds in the project area that 
would otherwise potentially warrant increased mitigation measures for 
marine mammals or their habitat. The proposed project area is within 
beluga whale critical habitat; however, use of the habitat is higher in 
fall and winter when the project would not occur nor would habitat be 
permanently impacted other than the presence of the pipelines on the 
seafloor. Thus mitigation to address beluga whale critical habitat is 
not warranted. Finally, the mitigation measures are practicable for the 
applicant to implement. NMFS has determined that the mitigation 
measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    Harvest will abide by all monitoring and reporting measures 
contained within their Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, 
dated March 15, 2018, with the additional condition described below 
regarding number and location of observers. This plan was revised from 
the original that was available for public comment. During the public 
comment period, Harvest found that there was limited space on the 
vessels and safety issues prevented a PSO from being placed on the 
barge. In the revised plan, Harvest moved the PSO from vessel-based to 
land- or Tyonek Platform- based. Harvest proposed that during the 
beginning of the project when activities are occurring close to shore, 
a PSO will be positioned on a 100-foot high bluff at Ladd Landing, 
which provides a marine mammal sighting distance of approximately 3 mi. 
As work progresses toward the Tyonek Platform, the PSO shall be 
stationed on the Tyonek platform which also provides for an 
approximately 100-foot high observation point. The elevation of both 
these observation points provides advantages than working aboard a 
single vessel. However, NMFS determined that a single land-based 
observer was not sufficient and is therefore requiring monitoring based 
on where along the

[[Page 19235]]

pipeline corridor activities are occurring. That is, a PSO shall be 
stationed at Ladd Landing when activities are occurring 0-2 km from 
shore. A PSO shall be stationed at the Tyonek Platform when activities 
are occurring greater than 6.5 km from shore. When project activities 
are occurring from 2 to 6.5 km from shore, a PSO shall be stationed at 
both Ladd Landing and the Tyonek Platform. All other monitoring 
measures included in the proposed IHA and in Harvest's monitoring plan 
remain in effect. NMFS has also included a provision in the IHA that 
PSOs will report on detectability and estimated range of observer 
coverage during all marine mammal monitoring shifts. Please see the 
IHA, posted at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111, for the 
complete set of reporting requirements.
    In recognition of the status of Cook Inlet beluga whales, Harvest 
is required to submit weekly reports to NMFS documenting marine mammal 
observations, behavior, and ability to detect marine mammals within the 
monitoring zone. If Harvest fails to abide by the mitigation, 
monitoring and/or reporting conditions contained within the IHA or NMFS 
determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible 
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, NMFS may 
modify the mitigation or monitoring measures if doing so creates a 
reasonable likelihood of more mitigation and monitoring leading to 
reduced impacts. Possible sources of new data that could contribute to 
the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures include: 
results from Harvest's marine mammal monitoring report, information 
from beluga whale researchers, and information from subsistence users 
or local community residents.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels). To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all 
the species listed in Table 6, given that NMFS expects the anticipated 
effects of the pipeline installation activities to be similar in 
nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or 
stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to 
activities, impact of expected take on the population due to 
differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, NMFS has 
identified species-specific factors to inform the analysis.
    Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels, but 
these impacts would be temporary. In addition to being temporary and 
short in overall duration, the acoustic footprint of the pipeline 
installation activities is small relative to the overall distribution 
of the animals in the area and their use of the area. Feeding behavior 
is not likely to be significantly impacted, as no areas of biological 
significance for marine mammal feeding are known to exist in the survey 
area. For beluga whales, there are no major river outfalls which 
provide prey within the action area.
    The proposed project would create an acoustic footprint around the 
project area for an extended period time (3.6 months) from April 
through September. Noise levels within the footprint would reach or 
exceed 120 dB rms. We anticipate the 120 dB footprint to be limited to 
20km\2\ around the cluster of vessels and equipment used to install the 
pipelines. The habitat within the footprint is not heavily used by 
marine mammals during the project time frame (e.g., Critical Habitat 
Area 2 is designated for beluga fall and winter use) and marine mammals 
are not known to engage in critical behaviors associated with this 
portion of Cook Inlet (e.g., no known breeding grounds, foraging 
habitat, etc.). Most animals will likely be transiting through the 
area; therefore, exposure would be brief. Animals may swim around the 
project area but we do not expect them to abandon any intended path. We 
also expect the number of animals exposed to be small relative to 
population sizes. Finally, Harvest will minimize potential exposure of 
marine mammals to elevated noise levels by not commencing operational 
activities if marine mammals are observed within the ensonified area.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
     The project does not involve noise sources capable of 
inducing PTS and no injury is anticipated or authorized;
     Exposure would likely be brief given transiting behavior 
of marine mammals in the action area, resulting in, at most, temporary 
avoidance and modification to vocalization behavior, and diverting 
around the project area;
     The project area does not contain concentrated foraging, 
mating, or breeding habitat;
     Marine mammal densities are low in the project area and 
the number of marine mammals potentially taken is small compared to the 
population size; and
     Harvest would monitor for marine mammals daily and 
minimize exposure to operational activities as required in the IHA.
    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 monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the 
proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine 
mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are 
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most 
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in 
our determination of whether an

[[Page 19236]]

authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. 
Additionally, qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, 
such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
    Table 7 provides the quantitative analysis informing our small 
numbers determination. For most species, the amount of take proposed is 
less than 3.5 percent of all stocks except beluga whales. For beluga 
whales, the amount of take proposed represents 12.8 percent of the 
population.

                      Table 7--Percent of Stock Proposed To Be Taken by Level B Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Abundance     Proposed take       % of
              Species                           Stock                 (Nbest)        (Level B)      population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale.......................  Cook Inlet.................             312          \2\ 40            12.8
Humpback whale.....................  Central North Pacific......          10,103               5            0.04
Killer whale.......................  Alaska Resident............           2,347  ..............             0.4
                                     Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian,               587          \3\ 10             1.7
                                      Bering Sea Transient.
Harbor porpoise....................  Gulf of Alaska.............          31,046             100             0.3
Harbor seal........................  Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait.          27,386             972             3.5
Steller sea lion...................  Western U.S................          50,983               6            0.01
Gray whale.........................  Eastern North Pacific......          20,990               5            0.02
California sea lion................  U.S........................         296,750               5           0.001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified 
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by 
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity (1) that 
is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the 
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly 
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers 
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The village of Tyonek engages in subsistence harvests; however, 
these efforts are concentrated in areas such as the Susitna Delta where 
marine mammals are known to occur in greater abundance. Harbor seals 
are the only species taken by Alaska Natives that may also be harassed 
by the proposed project. However, any harassment to harbor seals is 
anticipated to be short-term, mild, and not result in any abandonment 
or behaviors that would make the animals unavailable to Alaska Natives.
    Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures 
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS has determined there will not be an unmitigable adverse 
impact on subsistence uses from Harvest's proposed activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with Alaska Regional Office, 
whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened 
species.
    On April 25, 2018, NMFS Alaska Region issued a Biological Opinion 
to NMFS Office of Protected Resources which concluded Harvest's CIPL 
project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Cook 
Inlet beluga whales, the WDPS Steller sea lions, or Mexico and Western 
North Pacific humpback whales DPSs or destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to Harvest for the harassment of small 
numbers of eight marine mammal species incidental to pipeline 
installation activities in Cook Inlet, provided the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are 
incorporated.

Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-09242 Filed 5-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P