Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction at the City Dock and Ferry Terminal, in Tenakee Springs, Alaska, 29749-29761 [2018-13591]

Download as PDF sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices are currently due no later than July 10, 2017. Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.5 On June 11, 2018, Alliance Rubber Co. (the petitioner) submitted timely requests pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations.6 The petitioner stated that it requested postponement because Commerce is still conducting its antidumping investigations, and additional time is necessary for interested parties to respond to additional requests from Commerce. For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioner’s request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than August 29, 2018. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date. 5 See 19 CFR 351.205(e). letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Rubber Bands from Thailand and China— Petitioner’s Request for Postponement of the Preliminary Determinations in the Antidumping Duty Cases,’’ dated June 11, 2018. 6 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: June 20, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2018–13672 Filed 6–25–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XF830 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction at the City Dock and Ferry Terminal, in Tenakee Springs, Alaska National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. AGENCY: 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 the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with a city dock and ferry terminal improvement project in Tenakee Springs, Alaska. DATES: This Authorization is applicable from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Molineaux, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29749 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 shall have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), shall not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment). Summary of Request On October 23, 2017, NMFS received a request from ADOT&PF for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting improvements at the Tenakee Springs city dock and ferry terminal, in Tenakee Springs, Alaska. The application was considered adequate and complete on January 30, 2018. ADOT&PF’s request is for take of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year, hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA IHAs to be issued for this particular activity. E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 29750 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices Description of Activity The ADOT&PF plans to make improvements to the Tenakee Springs Ferry Terminal located in Tenakee Springs, Alaska, on Chichigof Island in southeast Alaska (Figure 1–1 of the application). The facility is a multifunction dock and active ferry terminal located in the center of town (see Figure 1–2 and Figure 1–3 in application). The project’s activities that have the potential to take marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile driving, drilling operations for pile installation (down-hole hammer), and vibratory pile removal. The purpose of the project is to replace the existing, aging mooring and transfer structures nearing the end of their operational life due to corrosion and wear with modern facilities that provide improved operations for Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferry vessels, as well as freight and fueling operators, servicing the community of Tenakee Springs. Planned improvements include the installation of new shore side facilities and marine structures and the renovation of existing structures. This shall accommodate cargo and baggage handling, vessel mooring, passenger and vehicle access gangways, and re-establish existing electrical and fuel systems. Improvements shall enhance public safety and security. In-water project construction activities shall begin no sooner than June 1, 2019. Pile installation and removal is expected to be completed in 93 working days within a 4-month window beginning sometime after June 1, 2019. Pile installation shall be intermittent and staggered depending on weather, construction and mechanical delays, marine mammal shutdowns, and other potential delays and logistical constraints. Given the possibility of schedule delays and other unforeseen circumstances, an IHA is being requested for a full year, from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020. A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the proposed IHA for this action found in the following Federal Register notice (83 FR 12152, March 20, 2018). Since that time, the only alteration that has been made to the planned activities is the addition of two pile removals with a vibratory hammer. This additional activity has no impact on the take numbers or duration of the project originally in the Federal Register notice (83 FR 12152, March 20, 2018). Therefore, a detailed description of the action is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity. continue to require the reporting of minimum, mean, median, and maximum values in hydroacoustic monitoring reports and the use of practical spreading when site-specific transmission loss data are not available. Comment 2: The Commission recommends NMFS promptly revise its draft rounding criteria in order to share them with the Commission in a timely manner Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission’s interest in this matter and looks forward to further discussion. Comments and Responses A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue an IHA was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2018 (83 FR 12152). During the 30-day public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) submitted a letter on April 2, 2018. The Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures. Comment 1: The Commission recommends NMFS (1) clarify that action proponents should use linear averaging rather than simple arithmetic means to estimate source levels both as reported in hydroacoustic monitoring reports and for use in applications, (2) continue to require that minimum, mean, median, and maximum values be reported in all hydroacoustic monitoring reports, (3) base proxy source levels on median rather than mean values and (4) continue to require action proponents to use practical spreading unless site-specific transmission loss data are available from the project site. Response: At this moment, there are no studies or data that support the use of either the linear mean, arithmetic mean, or median when determining appropriate proxy source levels. However, NMFS is considering the Commission’s recommendation at this time and may choose to use the linear mean or median proxy source levels for future actions. In addition, NMFS shall Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS 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 website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ species/mammals/). We provided a description of the specified activity in our Federal Register notice announcing the authorization (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). Since that time, it was noted that the section detailing Steller sea lions did not include updated non-pup counts conducted between October and March from 2004 to 2017 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the Tenakee Cannery Point haulout (the closest Steller sea lion haulout to the project area). These counts averaged 140 individuals at the haulout (Jemison 2017, unpubl. data) which were reflected in the Estimated Take Section of our Federal Register (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). All other information within these sections remain the same. Please refer to that document (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018); we provide only a summary table here (Table 1). TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Common name Scientific name ESA/MMPA status; Strategic (Y/N) 1 MMPA stock Stock abundance Nbest, (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2 Annual M/SI 3 PBR Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae Humpback whale ........... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Megaptera novaeangliae 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Central North Pacific ..... Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 E, D,Y Sfmt 4703 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 2006). E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 83 21 29751 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY—Continued Common name Minke whale .................. Scientific name ESA/MMPA status; Strategic (Y/N) 1 MMPA stock Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Alaska ........................... -, N Stock abundance Nbest, (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 2 PBR N.A ................................ Annual M/SI 3 N.A N.A. 2,347 (N.A., 2,347, 2012) 4. 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 4 .. 290 (N/A, 290, 2014) 6 .. 23.4 1 2.4 1.96 1 0 975 (0.10, 896, 2012) 5 83,400 ........................... 5 8.9 5 34 N.A 38 320 241 2,498 108 169 104 Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family Delphinidae Killer whale .................... Orcinus orca ................. Alaska Resident ............ -, N West Coast Transient ... Northern Resident ......... -, N -, N Family Phocoenidae Harbor porpoise ............. Dall’s porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena ..... Phocoenoides dalli ........ Southeast Alaska .......... Alaska ........................... -, Y -, N Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) Eumatopia jubatus ........ Western U.S. 7 .............. E, D, Y Eastern U.S. ................. Steller sea lion ............... -,-, N 50,983 (N.A., 50,983, 2016). 41,638 (N/A, 41,638, 2015). Family Phocidae (earless seals) Harbor seal .................... Phoca vitulina richardii .. Glacier Bay/Icy Strait .... -, N 7,210 (N.A., 5,647, 2011). sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; N min is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A). 3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). 4 N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs. 5 In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland Southeast Alaska waters (these abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). The calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the entire stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside waters of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as currently designated. The Annual M/SI is for the entire stock, including coastal waters. 6 Abundance estimates obtained from Towers et al. 2015. 7 Abundance, PBR, and Annual M/SI derived from draft 2017 SARs (Muto2017b). Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat The effect of stressors associated with the specified activities (e.g., pile driving and drilling) has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action areas. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of such disturbance on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated here. NMFS described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). In summary, the project activities are not expected to modify existing marine mammal habitat. Because of the short duration of the activities and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 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 for individual marine mammals or their populations. Estimated Take This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes for authorization through this IHA, which shall inform both NMFS’ consideration of whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (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 are expected to be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving and drilling. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdowns—discussed in detail below in Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 29752 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices authorized. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated. Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals shall be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that shall 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 take estimate. Acoustic Thresholds NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals shall be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. 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 (mPa) root mean square (rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns and impact pile driving) sources. ADOT&PF’s activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are applicable. Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) because of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS’ 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https:// www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ guidelines.htm. TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT PTS onset acoustic thresholds 1 (received level) Hearing group Impulsive Low-frequency cetaceans ................................................ Mid-frequency cetaceans ................................................. High-frequency cetaceans ............................................... Phocid Pinnipeds (underwater) ....................................... Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater) ........................................ sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 1 NMFS Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: Lpk,flat: 219 230 202 218 232 dB; dB; dB; dB; dB; Non-impulsive LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .................................... LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .................................... LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .................................... LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ................................... LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ................................... LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 2016. Although ADOT&PF’s construction activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and drilling) sources, the shutdown zones set by the applicant are large enough to ensure Level A harassment will be prevented. The Level A harassment zones for the project are illustrated in Table 4. The highest Level A harassment zones shown (176 meters for high-frequency cetaceans and 148 meters for lowfrequency cetaceans) are less than the total distance of the largest shutdown zone (200 meters for high- and lowfrequency cetaceans). To assure the largest shutdown zone can be fully monitored, protected species observers (PSOs) shall be positioned in the possible best vantage points during all piling/drilling activities to guarantee a shutdown if a high- and/or low- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 frequency cetacean approaches or enters the 200-meter shutdown zone. These measures are described in full detail below in the Mitigation and Monitoring Sections. Ensonified Area Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that feeds into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds. The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project, i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile removal. Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 surrounding the pile, allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth. An impact hammer shall then generally be used to place the pile at its intended depth. The actual durations of each installation method vary depending on the type and size of the pile. An impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston, producing a series of independent strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile installation. Factors that potentially minimize the potential impacts of pile installation associated with the project include: • The relatively shallow waters in the project area (Taylor et al., 2008); • Land forms around Tenakee Springs that shall block the noise from spreading; and E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 29753 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices • Vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial activities in the project area that contribute to elevated background noise levels. In order to calculate distances to the Level A and Level B sound thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations (see Table 3). Note that piles of differing sizes have different sound source levels. Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF sound source verification (SSV) studies at Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Auke Bay, Alaska were used to estimate sound source levels (SSLs) for vibratory, impact, and drilling installations of 30inch steel pipe piles (MacGillivray et al., 2016, Warner and Austin 2016b, Denes et al., 2016a, respectively). These Alaskan construction sites were generally assumed to best represent the environmental conditions found in Tenakee and represent the nearest available source level data for 30-inch steel piles. Similarities among the sites include thin layers of soft sediments overlying a bedrock layer and comparable bedrock depths. However, the use of data from Alaska sites was not appropriate in all instances. Details are described below. For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel piles, data from two Navy project locations in the state of Washington were reviewed. These include data from proxy sound source values at Navy installations in Puget Sound (Navy, 2015) and along the waterfront at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), Bangor (Navy 2012). After assessing these two sources, ADOT&PF selected an average source level of 161 dB rms, which NMFS concurs with as an appropriate sound source. In addition, for a fourth project at NBK, Bangor, construction crews drove 16-inch hollow steel piles with measured levels similar to those for the 24-inch piles. Therefore, NMFS elects to use 161 dB rms as a source level for vibratory driving of 18-inch and 16-inch steel piles. For vibratory driving of 14-inch steel and timber piles and 12.75-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF suggested a source level of 155 dB rms, which NMFS also concurs with. This source level was derived from summary data pertaining to vibratory driving of 18-inch steel piles in Kake, Alaska (MacGillivray 2015). In their application, ADOT&PF derived source levels for impact driving of 30-inch steel piles by averaging the individual mean values associated with impact driving of the same size and type from Ketchikan (Warner and Austin 2016a). Mean values from Ketchikan were the most conservative dataset for 30-inch impact pile driving in Southeast Alaska. The average mean value from this dataset was 194.7 dB rms and 180.8 dB sound exposure level (SEL). For 24-inch impact pile driving, NMFS used data from a Navy (2015) study of proxy sound source values for use at Puget Sound military installations. The Navy study recommended a value of 193 dB rms and 181 dB SEL, which was derived from data generated by impact driving of 24-inch steel piles at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Preservation project and the Friday Harbor Restoration Ferry Terminal project. NMFS found this estimated source level to be appropriate. For impact driving of 20-, 18-, and 14inch steel piles, ADOT&PF used source levels of 186.6 dB, 158 dB, and 158 dB respectively. These source levels were derived from Caltrans SSV studies at the Stockton Wastewater Treatment Plant (20-inch) and Caltrans SSV studies at Prichard Lake Pumping Plant in Sacramento, CA (18- and 14-inch) (Caltrans 2015). In regards to the drilling activities, a source level of 165 dB for all pile types originated from ADOT&PF SSV studies for piling operations in Kodiak, Alaska (Warner and Austin 2016b). TABLE 3—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE INSTALLATION, DRILLING, AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL Method and pile type Sound level at 10 meters Vibratory hammer Installation, removal, or proofing 30-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 24-inch steel piles ........... 20-inch steel piles ........... 18-inch steel piles ........... 16-inch steel piles ........... 14-inch steel piles ........... 14-inch timber piles ........ 12.75-inch steel piles ...... Install .............................. Install .............................. Remove, Install .............. Remove .......................... Remove .......................... Remove, Install .............. Remove .......................... 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 Literature source dB rms Drilling dB rms 30-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 24-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 20-inch steel piles ........... Install .............................. 165.0 18-inch steel piles ........... sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Derived from Warner and Austin 2016a & Denes et al. 2016. Navy 2012, 2015. Navy 2012, 2015. Navy 2012, 2015. Navy 2012, 2015. MacGillivray et al. 2015. MacGillivray et al. 2015. MacGillivray et al. 2015. Install .............................. 165.0 Impact hammer 30-inch 24-inch 20-inch 18-inch 14-inch steel piles ........... steel piles ........... steel piles ........... steel piles ........... timber piles ........ VerDate Sep<11>2014 dB rms Proofing .......................... Proofing .......................... Proofing .......................... Proofing .......................... Install .............................. 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 194.7 193.0 186.5 158.0 158.0 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Derived 2016b. Derived 2016b. Derived 2016b. Derived 2016b. dB SEL 180.8 181.0 175.5 ........................ ........................ Sfmt 4703 from Warner and Austin from Warner and Austin from Warner and Austin from Warner and Austin dB peak 208.6 210.0 207.0 174.0 174.0 E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM Warner and Austin 2016a. Navy 2015 (from 82 FR 31400). Caltrans 2015. Caltrans 2015. Caltrans 2015. 26JNN1 29754 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices The formula below is used to calculate underwater sound propagation. 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 B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15 NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15 dB per tenfold increase in distance. ADOT&PF analyzed the available underwater acoustic data utilizing this metric. 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, NMFS developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which shall result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and shall qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile driving and drilling, NMFS’ User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it shall not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and the resulting isopleths are reported in Tables 3 and 4. TABLE 4—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL Type of pile Activity Level B harassment zone (meters), cetaceans and pinnipeds 2 Level A harassment zone (meters) 1 Piles installed or removed per day Cetaceans LF MF Pinnipeds HF PW OW Vibratory (120 dB) 30-inch steel .......... 24-inch steel, 20inch steel, 18inch steel. 18-inch steel, 16inch steel. 14-inch steel, 14inch timber, 12.75-inch steel. Install 4 .................. Install 4 .................. 3 3 11 6 1 1 16 9 7 4 1 1 10,000 5,412 Remove 4 .............. 10 13 2 19 8 1 5,412 Remove 5 .............. 10 5 1 8 3 1 2,154 Drilling (120 dB) 30-inch steel, 20inch steel. 24-inch steel, 18inch steel. Install 6 .................. 3 55 5 81 34 3 10,000 Install 7 .................. 3 42 4 62 26 2 10,000 3 4 6 3 4 6 3 <1 <1 82 131 171 85 135 176 76 <1 2 37 59 77 38 61 79 34 <1 <1 3 5 6 3 5 6 3 <1 <1 2,057 Impact (160 dB) 3 Proofing ................ 24-inch steel .......... Proofing ................ 20-inch steel .......... 18-inch steel .......... 14-inch timber ....... sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 30-inch steel .......... 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 10 Proofing ................ Proofing ................ Install .................... 70 110 144 71 113 148 64 <1 1 1,585 584 7 7 1 Level A Isopleths Calculated Using NMFS’ 2016 Acoustic User Spreadsheet. Source level set at a distance of 10 Meters, a weighting factor adjustment of 2 kHz for impulse sources and 2.5 kHz for continuous sources, and a propagation loss value of 15 LogR. 2 Level B Isopleths Calculated using Practical Spreading Loss Model. Source level set at a distance of 10 meters and and a propagation loss value of 15 LogR. 3 30 Strikes per pile. 4 45 minute activity duration. 5 2.5 hour activity duration. 6 9 hour activity duration. 7 6 hour activity duration. 1 The distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 2 The distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices Pulse duration from the SSV studies described above are unknown. However, all necessary parameters were available for the SELcum (cumulative Single Strike Equivalent) method for calculating isopleths for 30-inch, 24-inch, and 20inch impact piles. Therefore, this method was selected for those piles. To account for potential variations in daily productivity during impact installation, isopleths were calculated for different numbers of piles that shall be installed each day (see Table 4). Should the contractor expect to install fewer piles in a day than the maximum anticipated, a smaller Level A shutdown zone shall be employed to monitor take. To derive Level A harassment isopleths associated with impact driving 30-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF utilized a single strike SEL of 180.8 dB and assumed 30 strikes per pile for 1 to 3 piles per day. For 24-inch and 20-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF used a single strike SEL of 181 dB SEL and 175.5 SEL respectively, also assuming 30 strikes at a rate of 1 to 3 piles per day. To calculate Level A harassment isopleths associated with impact piling 18-inch and 14-inch steel/timber piles, a source level (rms sound pressure level (SPL)) of 158 dB was used with a pulse duration of .05 seconds. To calculate Level A harassment for vibratory driving of 30-inch piles, ADOT&PF utilized a source level (rms SPL) of 165 dB and assumed 45 minutes of driving per day. For installing 24, 20, and 18-inch piles, ADOT&PF used a source level of 161 dB and assumed up to 45 minutes of driving per day. For removal of 18 and 16-inch piles, ADOT&PF assumed use of 18-inch piles and used the same source level of 161 dB for up to 45 minutes. Level A harassment for the installation/removal of piles 14-inches and under in diameter used a source level of 155 dB rms and assumed 2.5 hours of driving/removal a day. In regards to Level A for drilling, a source level of 165 dB rms was used for all pile types with varying levels of activity for each pile type (see Tables 1 & 2 of the FR Notice (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018) for information on drilling duration and max number of 29755 piles drilled each day). Results for all Level A isopleths are shown in Table 4. Isopleths for Level B harassment associated with impact (160 dB) and vibratory harassment (120 dB) were also calculated and are included in Table 4. It is important to note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is constrained by local topography relative to the total threshold radius (particularly for the Level B ensonified zones). The actual ensonified area was determined using a straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving locations. Overall, Level A harassment zones for impact installation are relatively small because of the few strikes required to proof the piles. The maximum aquatic areas ensonified within the Level A harassment isopleths do not exceed 0.1 square kilometer (km2) (see Figures 6–1 and Figure 6–2 in application). The corresponding areas of the Level B ensonified zones for impact driving and vibratory installation/ removal are shown in Table 5 below. TABLE 5—CALCULATED AREAS ENSONIFIED WITHIN LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL Type of pile Level B harassment zone (km2), cetaceans and pinnipeds Activity Vibratory (120 dB) 30-inch steel ............................................................................. 24-, 20-, 18-, and 16-inch steel ................................................ 14-, 12.75-inch steel, and 14-inch timber ................................ Install ........................................................................................ Install ........................................................................................ Remove .................................................................................... 78.9 45.3 7.3 Drilling (120 dB) 30-, 24-, 20-, and 18-inch steel ................................................ Install ........................................................................................ 78.9 Impact (160 dB) sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 30-inch 24-inch 20-inch 18-inch 14-inch steel ............................................................................. steel ............................................................................. steel ............................................................................. steel ............................................................................. timber ........................................................................... Marine Mammal Occurrence and Final Take Estimates In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that shall inform the take calculations. Potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold were estimated using local marine mammal density datasets where available and local observational data. As previously stated, only Level B take shall be considered for this action as Level A take shall be avoided via mitigation (i.e., shutdown). Each VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 Proofing .................................................................................... Proofing .................................................................................... Proofing .................................................................................... Proofing .................................................................................... Install ........................................................................................ shutdown zone fully covers the extent of each corresponding Level A zone for all piling and drilling activities (See Tables 4 and 6). Level B take is calculated differently for some species based on differences in density, yearround habitat use, and other contextual factors. See below for specific methodologies by species. Steller Sea Lions Steller sea lion abundance in the project area is highly seasonal in nature with sea lions being most active between October and March (Figure 4– PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6.7 4.0 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 2). Level B exposure estimates are conservatively based on the average winter (October to March) abundance of 140 sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery haulout, which is 8.9 km away from the project site (Jemison, 2017, unpublished data). However, it is unlikely that the entire Steller sea lion population from the Tenakee Cannery haulout shall forage to the west near the Tenakee Springs ferry terminal. Additionally, Steller sea lions do not generally forage every day, but tend to forage every 1– 2 days and return to haulouts to rest between foraging trips (Merrick and E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 29756 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al., 2009). Overall, this information indicates that only half of the Steller sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery haulout (i.e., average of 140 during winter) is likely to approach the project site on any given day and be exposed to sound levels that constitute behavioral harassment. As a result, an estimated 70 individuals is a conservative estimate of the number of Steller sea lions likely to forage in the underwater behavioral harassment zone on a given day. Therefore: 70 Steller sea lions per day * 93 days of potential exposure = 6,510 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures. To assign take to the eastern distinct population segment (eDPS) and western DPS (wDPS) stocks of Steller sea lions, data from researchers at NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center were used. Researchers at NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center state that roughly 17.8 percent of Steller sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery Point haulout are members of the wDPS whereas 82.2 percent are from the eDPS (L. Fritz, pers. comm; L. Fritz, unpublished data). Therefore, it is estimated that only 1,159 takes (17.8 percent of 6,510) have the potential to occur for wDPS Steller sea lions and 5,351 (82.2 percent of 6,510) takes have the potential to occur for eDPS Steller sea lions. In addition, since there is only an average of 140 Steller sea lions located at the Tenakee Cannery haulout, it is predicted that only 115 (82.2 percent of 140) individuals from the eDPS and 25 (17.8 percent of 140) individuals from the wDPS have the potential to be harassed. Harbor Seals Harbor seals are non-migratory; therefore, the exposure estimates are not dependent on season. We anticipate Level B harbor seal take to be relatively high, given the presence of three established haulouts within the largest (10 km) Level B harassment zone of the project site. The best available abundance estimate for Tenakee Inlet is 259 individual harbor seals (London, J., pers. comm.). The number of harbor seals that could potentially be exposed to elevated sound levels for the project was estimated by calculating density * area * number of days of activity. The total density of harbor seals in Tenakee inlet is approximately 1.11 animals per km2 (259 harbor seals/233.35 km2 of available habitat in Tenakee Inlet). However, the action area is equivalent to 78.9 km2. Therefore: 1.11 harbor seals per km2 * 78.9 km2 * 93 days of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 potential exposure = 8,144 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures. Harbor Porpoises Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, our exposure estimates are not dependent on season. Harbor porpoise surveys conducted in southeast Alaska during the summers of 1991–1993, 2006, 2007, and 2010–2012 included Chatham Strait (near the action area). The average density estimate for all survey years in Chatham Strait was 0.013 harbor porpoise per square km (Dahlheim et al., 2015). Surveys in 1997, 1998, and 1999 reported an average harbor porpoise density of .033 per square km in Southeast Alaska (Hobbs and Waite 2010). Based density estimates from Hobbs and Waite (2010), a more conservative density estimate, we estimate that approximately 2.6 (.033 * 78.9) harbor porpoises could occur daily within the 78.9 square km Level B harassment zone. Therefore: 2.6 harbor porpoises per day * 93 days of potential exposure = 242 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures. Dall’s Porpoises Dall’s porpoise are non-migratory; therefore, our exposure estimates are not dependent on season. Based on anecdotal evidence citing rare occurrences of the species in the action area, we anticipate approximately one observation of a Dall’s porpoise pod in the Level B harassment zone each week during construction (Lewis, S., pers. comm.). Based on an average pod size of 3.7 (Wade et al., 2003), we estimate 49 Dall’s porpoise could be exposed to Level B harassment noise during the 93 day construction period (i.e., 3.7 individuals per week * 13.2 weeks of potential exposure = 48.84 (rounded up to 49) total potential exposures). Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures. Killer Whales Local marine mammal experts indicate that approximately one killer whale pod is observed in Tenakee Inlet each month, year-round (Lewis, S., pers. comm.). It is assumed that all three killer whale stocks are equally likely to occur in the area because no data exist on relative abundance of the three stocks in Tenakee Inlet. The exposure estimate is conservatively based on a PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 resident pod size, which has been quantified and is known to be a larger than other stocks. Resident killer whales occur in a mean group size of 19.3 during the fall in southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Therefore, we assume that a total of approximately 60 killer whales could be exposed to Level B harassment over the course of the project (i.e., (19.3 individuals per pod * 1 pods per month) * 3.1 months = 59.83 (rounded up to 60)). Since there are no data that exist for killer whale stocks in Tenakee Inlet, 60 Level B takes were applied to each stock. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures. Humpback Whales Humpback whales are present in Tenakee Inlet year-round. Local experts indicate that as many as 12 humpback whales are present on some days from spring through fall, with lower numbers during the winter (S. Lewis and M. Dahlheim, pers. comm.). We conservatively estimate that half of those, or six individuals on average, could be exposed to Level B harassment during each day of pile installation and removal, therefore: 6 humpback whales per day * 93 days of exposure = 558 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures. Minke Whales Minke whales may be present in Tenakee Inlet year-round. Their abundance throughout southeast Alaska is very low, and anecdotal reports have not included minke whales near the project area. However, minke whales are distributed throughout a wide variety of habitats and could occur near the project area. Therefore, we conservatively estimate that one minke whale could be exposed to Level B harassment each month during construction or a total of three minke whales during the 93-day construction period. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures. Mitigation Measures 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 E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 29757 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure shall 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. In addition to the measures described later in this section, ADOT&PF shall employ the following standard mitigation measures: • Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures; • For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (e.g., standard barges, tug boats), 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. This type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile); • Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted; • For those marine mammals for which Level B take has not been requested, in-water pile installation/ removal and drilling shall shut down immediately when the animals are sighted; • If Level B take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, pile installation shall be stopped as these species approach the Level B zone to avoid additional take of them. The following measures shall apply to ADOT&PFs mitigation requirements: Establishment of Shutdown Zone for Level A—For all pile driving/removal and drilling activities, ADOT&PF shall establish a shutdown zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of activity shall occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). For all in-water heavy machinery activities, a 10 meter shutdown zone will be required. In addition, during impact installation of 24-inch and 30inch steel piles at a frequency of 2 or 3 piles per day, PSOs shall implement a 200-meter shutdown zone for Dall’s porpoises, minke whales, and humpback whales (low- and highfrequency cetaceans). The placement of PSOs during all pile driving and drilling activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and Reporting Section) shall ensure that each shutdown zone is visible during pile driving and drilling activities. All shutdown zones, with their corresponding sound source type are presented in Table 6 below. TABLE 6 SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR VARIOUS PILE DRIVING/DRILLING ACTIVITIES FOR MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS Shutdown zone radii (meters) Sound source type Highfrequency cetaceans Low-frequency cetaceans Mid-frequency cetaceans 100 100 100 50 50 200 100 200 100 100 10 10 10 10 10 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 1—Vibratory pile driving/removal, drilling, and impact pile driving (all impact pilling activities not expressed in the column directly below) ...................................................... Impact Installation of 24-inch and 30-inch steel piles at a frequency of two or three piles per day ........................... 3—In Water Heavy Machinery Activities (Non pile driving and drilling activities) ........................................................ Establishment of Monitoring Zones for Level B—ADOT&PF shall establish Level B disturbance zones or zones of influence (ZOI) which are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for impact driving and the 120 dB rms threshold during vibratory driving and drilling. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 mammals in the project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for a potential cease of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. The Level B zones are depicted in Table 4. As shown, the largest Level B zone is equal to 78.9 km2, making it impossible for the PSOs to view the entire harassment area. Due to this, Level B exposures shall be recorded and extrapolated based upon the number of observed take and the percentage of the Level B zone that was not visible. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Phocid pinnipeds Otariid pinnipeds Soft Start—The use of a soft-start procedure are believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors shall be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer at 40 percent energy, each strike followed by no less than a 30-second waiting period. This procedure shall be conducted a total of three times before impact pile driving E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 29758 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES begins. Soft Start is not required during vibratory pile driving and removal activities. Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the observer shall observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone shall be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been observed for 30 minutes (for cetaceans) and 15 minutes (for pinnipeds). If the Level B harassment zone has been observed for 30 minutes and nonpermitted species are not present within the zone, soft start procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the Level B zone. When a marine mammal permitted for Level B take is present in the Level B harassment zone, piling activities may begin and Level B take shall be recorded. As stated above, if the entire Level B zone is not visible at the start of construction, piling or drilling activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both the Level B and shutdown zone shall commence. 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 shall 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 action area. Effective reporting is critical both for 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained and/or experienced professionals, with the following minimum qualifications: • Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water’s surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target. • Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel). • Observers must have their CVs/ resumes submitted to and approved by NMFS • Advanced education in biological science or related field (i.e., undergraduate degree or higher).Observers may substitute education or training for experience. • Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience). • At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer. • Experience or training in the field Visual Monitoring identification of marine mammals, Monitoring shall be conducted 30 including the identification of minutes before, during, and 30 minutes behaviors. after pile driving and removal activities. • Sufficient training, orientation, or In addition, observers shall record all experience with the construction incidents of marine mammal operation to provide for personal safety occurrence, regardless of distance from during observations. activity, and shall document any • Writing skills sufficient to prepare a behavioral reactions in concert with report of observations including but not distance from piles being driven or limited to the number and species of removed. Pile driving activities include marine mammals observed; dates and the time to install or remove a single times when in-water construction pile or series of piles, as long as the time activities were conducted; dates and elapsed between uses of the pile driving times when in-water construction equipment is no more than thirty activities were suspended to avoid minutes. potential incidental injury from PSOs shall be land-based observers. A construction sound of marine mammals primary PSO shall be placed at the observed within a defined shutdown terminal where pile driving shall occur. zone; and marine mammal behavior. A second observer shall range the • Ability to communicate orally, by uplands on foot or by ATV via Tenakee radio or in person, with project Ave., and go from Grave Point east of personnel to provide real-time the harbor up and west of the project information on marine mammals site to get a full view of the Level A zone observed in the area as necessary. and as much of the Level B zone as A draft marine mammal monitoring possible. PSOs shall scan the waters report shall be submitted to NMFS using binoculars, and/or spotting within 90 days after the completion of scopes, and shall use a handheld GPS or pile driving and removal activities. It range-finder device to verify the shall include an overall description of distance to each sighting from the work completed, a narrative regarding project site. All PSOs shall be trained in marine mammal sightings, and marine mammal identification and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, behaviors and are required to have no the report must include: other project-related tasks while • Date and time that monitored conducting monitoring. In addition, activity begins or ends; monitoring shall be conducted by • Construction activities occurring qualified observers, who shall be placed during each observation period; at the best vantage point(s) practicable • Weather parameters (e.g., percent to monitor for marine mammals and cover, visibility); implement shutdown/delay procedures • Water conditions (e.g., sea state, when applicable by calling for the tide state); 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. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices • 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. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report shall constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments 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, such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, ADOT&PF shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report shall include the following information: • Description of the incident; • Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state, 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 shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ADOT&PF to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ADOT&PF shall not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), ADOT&PF shall immediately 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. The report shall include the same VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 information identified in the paragraph above. Activities shall be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS shall work with ADOT&PF to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate. In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and the lead PSO 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), ADOT&PF shall 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. ADOT&PF shall provide photographs, video footage (if available), or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 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., populationlevel 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 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29759 sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels). As stated in the mitigation section, shutdown zones equal to or exceeding Level A isopleths shown in Table 4 shall be implemented, and in this case, Level A take is not anticipated nor authorized. Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving and removal at the ferry terminal, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-generating activities per day and that pile driving, removal, and drilling shall occur for 93 days, any harassment shall be temporary. In addition, the project was designed with relatively small-diameter piles, which shall avoid the elevated noise impacts associated with larger piles. In addition, there are no known biologically important areas near the project zone that shall be moderately or significantly impacted by the construction activities. The region of Tenakee Inlet where the project shall take place is located in a developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. Although there is a harbor seal haulout approximately one km south of the project site, it shall not be located within the project’s Level B zone. 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. • There are no known biologically important areas within the project area. • ADOT&PF shall implement mitigation measures such as vibratory driving piles to the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts, and shut downs. • Monitoring reports from similar work in Alaska have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities. 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 activity shall E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 29760 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. Overall, ADOT&PF proposes 15,566 total Level B takes of these marine mammals. Table 7 below shows take as a percent of population for each of the species listed above. TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT SOUND LEVELS Number of exposures to Level B harassment total and by stock Number of individuals potentially exposed to Level B harassment Stock abundance Percent of population 1 Species DPS/Stock Steller sea lion .................................. Humpback whale .............................. Minke whale ...................................... Eastern DPS .................................... Western DPS ................................... Glacier Bay/Icy Strait ....................... Southeast Alaska ............................. Alaska ............................................... West Coast transient ........................ Alaska resident ................................. Northern Resident ............................ Mexico DPS/Central North Pacific ... Alaska ............................................... 5,351 1,159 8,144 242 49 60 60 60 558 3 115 25 259 242 49 60 60 60 558 3 41,638 53,303 7,210 975 83,400 243 2,347 290 10,103 N/A <0.3 <0.1 3.6 24.8 <0.1 24.7 2.6 20.7 5.5 N/A Total ........................................... ........................................................... 15,686 1,434 N/A N/A Harbor seal ....................................... Harbor porpoise ................................ Dall’s porpoise .................................. Killer whale ........................................ 1 The sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES percent of population is based on the proportion of take that is expected to occur from each stock based on abundance (see Table 1). Killer whale stocks are assumed to be equally likely to occur. N/A: Not Applicable or no stock population assessment is available. Table 7 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels causing Level B harassment for the work at the Tenakee Springs Ferry Terminal. Our analysis shows that less than 25 percent of each affected stock could be taken by harassment. Therefore, the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species shall 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 harbor porpoise, the abundance estimates used in the percentage of population were taken from inland Southeast Alaska waters. These abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0) and are likely conservative, therefore it is expected for the percentage of population that shall be taken to be overestimated. In addition, high percentage totals for northern resident (20.7 percent) and western transient (24.7 percent) killer whales were based on the possibility that all 60 takes for killer whales shall occur for each stock, which is a highly unlikely scenario. Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 numbers of marine mammals shall be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks. Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks shall not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. The project is not known to occur in an important subsistence hunting area. It is a developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. However, ADOT&PF plans to provide advanced public notice of construction activities to reduce construction impacts on local residents, ferry travelers, adjacent businesses, and other users of the Tenakee Springs ferry terminal and nearby areas. This shall include notification to local Alaska Native tribes that may have members who hunt marine mammals for subsistence. Of the marine mammals considered in this IHA application, only harbor seals are known to be used for subsistence in the project area. If any tribes express concerns regarding project impacts to subsistence hunting PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 of marine mammals, further communication between shall take place, including provision of any project information, and clarification of any mitigation and minimization measures that may reduce potential impacts to marine mammals. 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 that there shall not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ADOT&PF’s 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 NMFS’ Alaska Regional Office, whenever we propose to E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Notices authorize take for endangered or threatened species. NMFS Alaska Region issued a Biological Opinion to NMFS Office of Protected Resources which concluded the city dock and improvement project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of WDPS Steller sea lions or Mexico DPS humpback whales or adversely modify critical habitat because none exists within the action area. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Environmental Policy Act AGENCY: 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 action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. Authorization As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for conducting the described construction activities related to city dock and ferry terminal improvements from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020 provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: June 20, 2018. Elaine T. Saiz, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2018–13591 Filed 6–25–18; 8:45 am] sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 3510–22–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Intent To Find That Georgia Has Satisfied All Conditions of Approval Placed on Its Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of Intent to find that Georgia has satisfied all conditions of approval on its coastal nonpoint pollution control program. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (the federal agencies) invite public comment on the agencies’ proposed finding that Georgia has satisfied all conditions on the 2002 approval of the State’s coastal nonpoint pollution control program (coastal nonpoint program). The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) directs states and territories with coastal zone management programs previously approved under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to develop and implement coastal nonpoint programs, which must be submitted to the federal agencies for approval. Prior to making such a finding, NOAA and EPA invite public input on the federal agencies’ reasoning for this proposed finding. DATES: Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments on the proposed findings document should do so by July 26, 2018. ADDRESSES: Comments can be made by email to: ocm.czara@noaa.gov, or in writing to Joelle Gore, Chief, Stewardship Division (N/OCM6), Office for Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, phone (240) 533–0813, to the ATTN: Georgia Coastal Nonpoint Program. All comments received will be posted without change to https:// coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/, including any personal information provided. The federal agencies may publish any comment received. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29761 accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The federal agencies will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the proposed Findings Document may be found on NOAA’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program website at https:// coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/. Additional background information on the state’s program may be obtained upon request from: Allison Castellan, Stewardship Division (N/OCM6), Office for Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, phone (240) 533–0799, email allison.castellan@noaa.gov. Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 16 U.S.C. 1455b(a), requires that each state (or territory) with a coastal zone management program previously approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act must prepare and submit to the federal agencies a coastal nonpoint pollution control program for approval. Georgia originally submitted its program to the federal agencies for approval in December 1999. The federal agencies provided public notice of and invited public comment on their proposal to approve, with conditions, the Georgia program (66 FR 49643). The federal agencies approved the program by letter dated June 4, 2002, subject to the conditions specified in the letter (67 FR 38471). The federal agencies propose to find, and invite public comment on the proposed findings, that Georgia has now fully satisfied all conditions of the earlier approval of its coastal nonpoint program. Over time, Georgia has made changes to its program in order to satisfy the identified conditions. As explained in the proposed findings document, the federal agencies have determined that Georgia has fully met all conditions originally placed on its program. The proposed findings document describes how the State program has satisfied the conditions. The proposed findings document for Georgia’s program as well as information on the Coastal Nonpoint Program in general is available for download on the NOAA website at https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollution control/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM 26JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29749-29761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF830

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction at the City Dock and
Ferry Terminal, in Tenakee Springs, Alaska

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

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an 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
the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF)
to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals
during construction activities associated with a city dock and ferry
terminal improvement project in Tenakee Springs, Alaska.

DATES: This Authorization is applicable from June 1, 2019 through May
31, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Summary of Request

On October 23, 2017, NMFS received a request from ADOT&PF for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting improvements at the
Tenakee Springs city dock and ferry terminal, in Tenakee Springs,
Alaska. The application was considered adequate and complete on January
30, 2018. ADOT&PF's request is for take of seven species of marine
mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year,
hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA IHAs to be issued for this
particular activity.

[[Page 29750]]

Description of Activity

The ADOT&PF plans to make improvements to the Tenakee Springs Ferry
Terminal located in Tenakee Springs, Alaska, on Chichigof Island in
southeast Alaska (Figure 1-1 of the application). The facility is a
multi-function dock and active ferry terminal located in the center of
town (see Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 in application). The project's
activities that have the potential to take marine mammals include
vibratory and impact pile driving, drilling operations for pile
installation (down-hole hammer), and vibratory pile removal.
The purpose of the project is to replace the existing, aging
mooring and transfer structures nearing the end of their operational
life due to corrosion and wear with modern facilities that provide
improved operations for Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferry
vessels, as well as freight and fueling operators, servicing the
community of Tenakee Springs. Planned improvements include the
installation of new shore side facilities and marine structures and the
renovation of existing structures. This shall accommodate cargo and
baggage handling, vessel mooring, passenger and vehicle access
gangways, and re-establish existing electrical and fuel systems.
Improvements shall enhance public safety and security.
In-water project construction activities shall begin no sooner than
June 1, 2019. Pile installation and removal is expected to be completed
in 93 working days within a 4-month window beginning sometime after
June 1, 2019. Pile installation shall be intermittent and staggered
depending on weather, construction and mechanical delays, marine mammal
shutdowns, and other potential delays and logistical constraints. Given
the possibility of schedule delays and other unforeseen circumstances,
an IHA is being requested for a full year, from June 1, 2019 through
May 31, 2020.
A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the
proposed IHA for this action found in the following Federal Register
notice (83 FR 12152, March 20, 2018). Since that time, the only
alteration that has been made to the planned activities is the addition
of two pile removals with a vibratory hammer. This additional activity
has no impact on the take numbers or duration of the project originally
in the Federal Register notice (83 FR 12152, March 20, 2018).
Therefore, a detailed description of the action is not provided here.
Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the
specific activity.

Comments and Responses

A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Federal Register on March 20, 2018 (83 FR 12152). During the 30-day
public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission)
submitted a letter on April 2, 2018. The Commission recommended that
NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting measures.
Comment 1: The Commission recommends NMFS (1) clarify that action
proponents should use linear averaging rather than simple arithmetic
means to estimate source levels both as reported in hydroacoustic
monitoring reports and for use in applications, (2) continue to require
that minimum, mean, median, and maximum values be reported in all
hydroacoustic monitoring reports, (3) base proxy source levels on
median rather than mean values and (4) continue to require action
proponents to use practical spreading unless site-specific transmission
loss data are available from the project site.
Response: At this moment, there are no studies or data that support
the use of either the linear mean, arithmetic mean, or median when
determining appropriate proxy source levels. However, NMFS is
considering the Commission's recommendation at this time and may choose
to use the linear mean or median proxy source levels for future
actions. In addition, NMFS shall continue to require the reporting of
minimum, mean, median, and maximum values in hydroacoustic monitoring
reports and the use of practical spreading when site-specific
transmission loss data are not available.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends NMFS promptly revise its draft
rounding criteria in order to share them with the Commission in a
timely manner
Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's interest in this matter
and looks forward to further discussion.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS 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 website
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/). We provided a description of
the specified activity in our Federal Register notice announcing the
authorization (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). Since that time, it was
noted that the section detailing Steller sea lions did not include
updated non-pup counts conducted between October and March from 2004 to
2017 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the Tenakee Cannery
Point haulout (the closest Steller sea lion haulout to the project
area). These counts averaged 140 individuals at the haulout (Jemison
2017, unpubl. data) which were reflected in the Estimated Take Section
of our Federal Register (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). All other
information within these sections remain the same. Please refer to that
document (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018); we provide only a summary table
here (Table 1).

Table 1--Marine Mammals That Occur in the Project Area During the Specified Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance Nbest,
ESA/MMPA status; (CV, Nmin, most recent Annual M/
Common name Scientific name MMPA stock Strategic (Y/N) \1\ abundance survey) \2\ PBR SI \3\

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale..................... Megaptera novaeangliae Central North Pacific. E, D,Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 83 21
2006).

[[Page 29751]]

Minke whale........................ Balaenoptera Alaska................ -, N N.A................... N.A N.A.
acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale....................... Orcinus orca.......... Alaska Resident....... -, N 2,347 (N.A., 2,347, 23.4 1
2012) \4\.
West Coast Transient.. -, N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 2.4 1
\4\.
Northern Resident..... -, N 290 (N/A, 290, 2014) 1.96 0
\6\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.................... Phocoena phocoena..... Southeast Alaska...... -, Y 975 (0.10, 896, 2012) \5\ 8.9 \5\ 34
\5\.
Dall's porpoise.................... Phocoenoides dalli.... Alaska................ -, N 83,400................ N.A 38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion................... Eumatopia jubatus..... Western U.S. \7\...... E, D, Y 50,983 (N.A., 50,983, 320 241
2016).
Eastern U.S........... -,-, N 41,638 (N/A, 41,638, 2,498 108
2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal........................ Phoca vitulina Glacier Bay/Icy Strait -, N 7,210 (N.A., 5,647, 169 104
richardii. 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A).
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs.
\5\ In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland Southeast Alaska waters (these
abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). The calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the
entire stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside waters of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as
currently designated. The Annual M/SI is for the entire stock, including coastal waters.
\6\ Abundance estimates obtained from Towers et al. 2015.
\7\ Abundance, PBR, and Annual M/SI derived from draft 2017 SARs (Muto2017b).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

The effect of stressors associated with the specified activities
(e.g., pile driving and drilling) has the potential to result in
behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action
areas. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 12152;
March 20, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of such
disturbance on marine mammals, therefore that information is not
repeated here.
NMFS described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail
in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (83 FR 12152;
March 20, 2018). In summary, the project activities are not expected to
modify existing marine mammal habitat. 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 for individual
marine mammals or their populations.

Estimated Take

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
for authorization through this IHA, which shall inform both NMFS'
consideration of whether the number of takes is ``small'' 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 are expected to be by Level B harassment only, in
the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine
mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving and drilling. Based on
the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdowns--discussed in detail below in
Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor

[[Page 29752]]

authorized. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or
authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals shall be behaviorally harassed or
incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that shall 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 take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received
level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals shall be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. 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
mean 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 and impact pile driving) sources.
ADOT&PF's activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving and drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are
applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) because of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are
provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2016
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

Table 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds \1\ (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency cetaceans................ Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-frequency cetaceans................ Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-frequency cetaceans............... Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (underwater).......... Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater)......... Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NMFS 2016.

Although ADOT&PF's construction activity includes the use of
impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile
driving and drilling) sources, the shutdown zones set by the applicant
are large enough to ensure Level A harassment will be prevented. The
Level A harassment zones for the project are illustrated in Table 4.
The highest Level A harassment zones shown (176 meters for high-
frequency cetaceans and 148 meters for low-frequency cetaceans) are
less than the total distance of the largest shutdown zone (200 meters
for high- and low-frequency cetaceans). To assure the largest shutdown
zone can be fully monitored, protected species observers (PSOs) shall
be positioned in the possible best vantage points during all piling/
drilling activities to guarantee a shutdown if a high- and/or low-
frequency cetacean approaches or enters the 200-meter shutdown zone.
These measures are described in full detail below in the Mitigation and
Monitoring Sections.

Ensonified Area

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that feeds into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine
mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary
components of the project, i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile
driving, and vibratory pile removal. Vibratory hammers produce constant
sound when operating, and produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment
surrounding the pile, allowing it to penetrate to the required seating
depth. An impact hammer shall then generally be used to place the pile
at its intended depth. The actual durations of each installation method
vary depending on the type and size of the pile. An impact hammer is a
steel device that works like a piston, producing a series of
independent strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering typically
generates the loudest noise associated with pile installation. Factors
that potentially minimize the potential impacts of pile installation
associated with the project include:
The relatively shallow waters in the project area (Taylor
et al., 2008);
Land forms around Tenakee Springs that shall block the
noise from spreading; and

[[Page 29753]]

Vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial
activities in the project area that contribute to elevated background
noise levels.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A and Level B sound
thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in this project, NMFS
used acoustic monitoring data from other locations (see Table 3). Note
that piles of differing sizes have different sound source levels.
Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF sound source verification (SSV)
studies at Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Auke Bay, Alaska were used to
estimate sound source levels (SSLs) for vibratory, impact, and drilling
installations of 30-inch steel pipe piles (MacGillivray et al., 2016,
Warner and Austin 2016b, Denes et al., 2016a, respectively). These
Alaskan construction sites were generally assumed to best represent the
environmental conditions found in Tenakee and represent the nearest
available source level data for 30-inch steel piles. Similarities among
the sites include thin layers of soft sediments overlying a bedrock
layer and comparable bedrock depths. However, the use of data from
Alaska sites was not appropriate in all instances. Details are
described below.
For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel piles, data from two Navy
project locations in the state of Washington were reviewed. These
include data from proxy sound source values at Navy installations in
Puget Sound (Navy, 2015) and along the waterfront at Naval Base Kitsap
(NBK), Bangor (Navy 2012). After assessing these two sources, ADOT&PF
selected an average source level of 161 dB rms, which NMFS concurs with
as an appropriate sound source. In addition, for a fourth project at
NBK, Bangor, construction crews drove 16-inch hollow steel piles with
measured levels similar to those for the 24-inch piles. Therefore, NMFS
elects to use 161 dB rms as a source level for vibratory driving of 18-
inch and 16-inch steel piles.
For vibratory driving of 14-inch steel and timber piles and 12.75-
inch steel piles, ADOT&PF suggested a source level of 155 dB rms, which
NMFS also concurs with. This source level was derived from summary data
pertaining to vibratory driving of 18-inch steel piles in Kake, Alaska
(MacGillivray 2015).
In their application, ADOT&PF derived source levels for impact
driving of 30-inch steel piles by averaging the individual mean values
associated with impact driving of the same size and type from Ketchikan
(Warner and Austin 2016a). Mean values from Ketchikan were the most
conservative dataset for 30-inch impact pile driving in Southeast
Alaska. The average mean value from this dataset was 194.7 dB rms and
180.8 dB sound exposure level (SEL).
For 24-inch impact pile driving, NMFS used data from a Navy (2015)
study of proxy sound source values for use at Puget Sound military
installations. The Navy study recommended a value of 193 dB rms and 181
dB SEL, which was derived from data generated by impact driving of 24-
inch steel piles at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Preservation
project and the Friday Harbor Restoration Ferry Terminal project. NMFS
found this estimated source level to be appropriate.
For impact driving of 20-, 18-, and 14-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF
used source levels of 186.6 dB, 158 dB, and 158 dB respectively. These
source levels were derived from Caltrans SSV studies at the Stockton
Wastewater Treatment Plant (20-inch) and Caltrans SSV studies at
Prichard Lake Pumping Plant in Sacramento, CA (18- and 14-inch)
(Caltrans 2015). In regards to the drilling activities, a source level
of 165 dB for all pile types originated from ADOT&PF SSV studies for
piling operations in Kodiak, Alaska (Warner and Austin 2016b).

Table 3--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile Installation,
Drilling, and Vibratory Pile Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and pile type Installation, Sound level at 10 meters
------------------------------ removal, or ------------------------------------------------ Literature
Vibratory hammer proofing dB rms source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles.......... Install......... 165.0 Derived from
Warner and
Austin 2016a &
Denes et al.
2016.
24-inch steel piles.......... Install......... 161.0 Navy 2012,
2015.
20-inch steel piles.......... Install......... 161.0 Navy 2012,
2015.
18-inch steel piles.......... Remove, Install. 161.0 Navy 2012,
2015.
16-inch steel piles.......... Remove.......... 161.0 Navy 2012,
2015.
14-inch steel piles.......... Remove.......... 155.0 MacGillivray et
al. 2015.
14-inch timber piles......... Remove, Install. 155.0 MacGillivray et
al. 2015.
12.75-inch steel piles....... Remove.......... 155.0 MacGillivray et
al. 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drilling dB rms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles.......... Install......... 165.0 Derived from
Warner and
Austin 2016b.
24-inch steel piles.......... Install......... 165.0 Derived from
Warner and
Austin 2016b.
20-inch steel piles.......... Install......... 165.0 Derived from
Warner and
Austin 2016b.
18-inch steel piles.......... Install......... 165.0 Derived from
Warner and
Austin 2016b.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact hammer dB rms dB SEL dB peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles.......... Proofing........ 194.7 180.8 208.6 Warner and
Austin 2016a.
24-inch steel piles.......... Proofing........ 193.0 181.0 210.0 Navy 2015 (from
82 FR 31400).
20-inch steel piles.......... Proofing........ 186.5 175.5 207.0 Caltrans 2015.
18-inch steel piles.......... Proofing........ 158.0 .............. 174.0 Caltrans 2015.
14-inch timber piles......... Install......... 158.0 .............. 174.0 Caltrans 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29754]]

The formula below is used to calculate underwater sound
propagation. 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\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile.
\2\ The distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15

NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15
dB per tenfold increase in distance. ADOT&PF analyzed the available
underwater acoustic data utilizing this metric.
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, NMFS developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to
help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which shall result in some degree
of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best
way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways
to quantitatively refine these tools, and shall qualitatively address
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile
driving and drilling, NMFS' User Spreadsheet predicts the closest
distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the
whole duration of the activity, it shall not incur PTS. Inputs used in
the User Spreadsheet and the resulting isopleths are reported in Tables
3 and 4.

Table 4--Calculated Distances to Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths During Pile Installation and Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (meters) \1\ Level B
----------------------------------------------------------------- harassment
Piles Cetaceans Pinnipeds zone
installed ----------------------------------------------------------------- (meters),
Type of pile Activity or removed cetaceans
per day and
LF MF HF PW OW pinnipeds
\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory (120 dB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel....................... Install \4\............ 3 11 1 16 7 1 10,000
24-inch steel, 20-inch steel, 18- Install \4\............ 3 6 1 9 4 1 5,412
inch steel.
18-inch steel, 16-inch steel........ Remove \4\............. 10 13 2 19 8 1 5,412
14-inch steel, 14-inch timber, 12.75- Remove \5\............. 10 5 1 8 3 1 2,154
inch steel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling (120 dB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel, 20-inch steel........ Install \6\............ 3 55 5 81 34 3 10,000
24-inch steel, 18-inch steel........ Install \7\............ 3 42 4 62 26 2 10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (160 dB) 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel....................... Proofing............... 1 70 3 82 37 3 2,057
2 110 4 131 59 5
3 144 6 171 77 6
24-inch steel....................... Proofing............... 1 71 3 85 38 3 1,585
2 113 4 135 61 5
3 148 6 176 79 6
20-inch steel....................... Proofing............... 3 64 3 76 34 3 584
18-inch steel....................... Proofing............... 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7
14-inch timber...................... Install................ 10 1 <1 2 <1 <1 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Level A Isopleths Calculated Using NMFS' 2016 Acoustic User Spreadsheet. Source level set at a distance of 10 Meters, a weighting factor adjustment
of 2 kHz for impulse sources and 2.5 kHz for continuous sources, and a propagation loss value of 15 LogR.
\2\ Level B Isopleths Calculated using Practical Spreading Loss Model. Source level set at a distance of 10 meters and and a propagation loss value of
15 LogR.
\3\ 30 Strikes per pile.
\4\ 45 minute activity duration.
\5\ 2.5 hour activity duration.
\6\ 9 hour activity duration.
\7\ 6 hour activity duration.

[[Page 29755]]

Pulse duration from the SSV studies described above are unknown.
However, all necessary parameters were available for the
SELcum (cumulative Single Strike Equivalent) method for
calculating isopleths for 30-inch, 24-inch, and 20-inch impact piles.
Therefore, this method was selected for those piles. To account for
potential variations in daily productivity during impact installation,
isopleths were calculated for different numbers of piles that shall be
installed each day (see Table 4). Should the contractor expect to
install fewer piles in a day than the maximum anticipated, a smaller
Level A shutdown zone shall be employed to monitor take.
To derive Level A harassment isopleths associated with impact
driving 30-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF utilized a single strike SEL of
180.8 dB and assumed 30 strikes per pile for 1 to 3 piles per day. For
24-inch and 20-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF used a single strike SEL of
181 dB SEL and 175.5 SEL respectively, also assuming 30 strikes at a
rate of 1 to 3 piles per day. To calculate Level A harassment isopleths
associated with impact piling 18-inch and 14-inch steel/timber piles, a
source level (rms sound pressure level (SPL)) of 158 dB was used with a
pulse duration of .05 seconds.
To calculate Level A harassment for vibratory driving of 30-inch
piles, ADOT&PF utilized a source level (rms SPL) of 165 dB and assumed
45 minutes of driving per day. For installing 24, 20, and 18-inch
piles, ADOT&PF used a source level of 161 dB and assumed up to 45
minutes of driving per day. For removal of 18 and 16-inch piles,
ADOT&PF assumed use of 18-inch piles and used the same source level of
161 dB for up to 45 minutes. Level A harassment for the installation/
removal of piles 14-inches and under in diameter used a source level of
155 dB rms and assumed 2.5 hours of driving/removal a day. In regards
to Level A for drilling, a source level of 165 dB rms was used for all
pile types with varying levels of activity for each pile type (see
Tables 1 & 2 of the FR Notice (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018) for
information on drilling duration and max number of piles drilled each
day). Results for all Level A isopleths are shown in Table 4. Isopleths
for Level B harassment associated with impact (160 dB) and vibratory
harassment (120 dB) were also calculated and are included in Table 4.
It is important to note that the actual area ensonified by pile
driving activities is constrained by local topography relative to the
total threshold radius (particularly for the Level B ensonified zones).
The actual ensonified area was determined using a straight line-of-
sight projection from the anticipated pile driving locations. Overall,
Level A harassment zones for impact installation are relatively small
because of the few strikes required to proof the piles. The maximum
aquatic areas ensonified within the Level A harassment isopleths do not
exceed 0.1 square kilometer (km\2\) (see Figures 6-1 and Figure 6-2 in
application). The corresponding areas of the Level B ensonified zones
for impact driving and vibratory installation/removal are shown in
Table 5 below.

Table 5--Calculated Areas Ensonified Within Level B Harassment Isopleths
During Pile Installation and Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
harassment zone
Type of pile Activity (km\2\),
cetaceans and
pinnipeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory (120 dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel.................... Install............ 78.9
24-, 20-, 18-, and 16-inch steel. Install............ 45.3
14-, 12.75-inch steel, and 14- Remove............. 7.3
inch timber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling (120 dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-, 24-, 20-, and 18-inch steel. Install............ 78.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (160 dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel.................... Proofing........... 6.7
24-inch steel.................... Proofing........... 4.0
20-inch steel.................... Proofing........... 0.6
18-inch steel.................... Proofing........... <0.1
14-inch timber................... Install............ <0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Final Take Estimates

In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that shall inform the take
calculations. Potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving
noise for each threshold were estimated using local marine mammal
density datasets where available and local observational data. As
previously stated, only Level B take shall be considered for this
action as Level A take shall be avoided via mitigation (i.e.,
shutdown). Each shutdown zone fully covers the extent of each
corresponding Level A zone for all piling and drilling activities (See
Tables 4 and 6). Level B take is calculated differently for some
species based on differences in density, year-round habitat use, and
other contextual factors. See below for specific methodologies by
species.
Steller Sea Lions
Steller sea lion abundance in the project area is highly seasonal
in nature with sea lions being most active between October and March
(Figure 4-2). Level B exposure estimates are conservatively based on
the average winter (October to March) abundance of 140 sea lions at the
Tenakee Cannery haulout, which is 8.9 km away from the project site
(Jemison, 2017, unpublished data). However, it is unlikely that the
entire Steller sea lion population from the Tenakee Cannery haulout
shall forage to the west near the Tenakee Springs ferry terminal.
Additionally, Steller sea lions do not generally forage every day, but
tend to forage every 1-2 days and return to haulouts to rest between
foraging trips (Merrick and

[[Page 29756]]

Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al., 2009). Overall, this information
indicates that only half of the Steller sea lions at the Tenakee
Cannery haulout (i.e., average of 140 during winter) is likely to
approach the project site on any given day and be exposed to sound
levels that constitute behavioral harassment. As a result, an estimated
70 individuals is a conservative estimate of the number of Steller sea
lions likely to forage in the underwater behavioral harassment zone on
a given day. Therefore: 70 Steller sea lions per day * 93 days of
potential exposure = 6,510 potential exposures. Each of these exposures
will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested
nor authorized due to shutdown measures.
To assign take to the eastern distinct population segment (eDPS)
and western DPS (wDPS) stocks of Steller sea lions, data from
researchers at NMFS' Alaska Fisheries Science Center were used.
Researchers at NMFS' Alaska Fisheries Science Center state that roughly
17.8 percent of Steller sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery Point haulout
are members of the wDPS whereas 82.2 percent are from the eDPS (L.
Fritz, pers. comm; L. Fritz, unpublished data). Therefore, it is
estimated that only 1,159 takes (17.8 percent of 6,510) have the
potential to occur for wDPS Steller sea lions and 5,351 (82.2 percent
of 6,510) takes have the potential to occur for eDPS Steller sea lions.
In addition, since there is only an average of 140 Steller sea lions
located at the Tenakee Cannery haulout, it is predicted that only 115
(82.2 percent of 140) individuals from the eDPS and 25 (17.8 percent of
140) individuals from the wDPS have the potential to be harassed.
Harbor Seals
Harbor seals are non-migratory; therefore, the exposure estimates
are not dependent on season. We anticipate Level B harbor seal take to
be relatively high, given the presence of three established haulouts
within the largest (10 km) Level B harassment zone of the project site.
The best available abundance estimate for Tenakee Inlet is 259
individual harbor seals (London, J., pers. comm.).
The number of harbor seals that could potentially be exposed to
elevated sound levels for the project was estimated by calculating
density * area * number of days of activity. The total density of
harbor seals in Tenakee inlet is approximately 1.11 animals per km\2\
(259 harbor seals/233.35 km\2\ of available habitat in Tenakee Inlet).
However, the action area is equivalent to 78.9 km\2\. Therefore: 1.11
harbor seals per km\2\ * 78.9 km\2\ * 93 days of potential exposure =
8,144 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level
B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to
shutdown measures.
Harbor Porpoises
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, our exposure
estimates are not dependent on season. Harbor porpoise surveys
conducted in southeast Alaska during the summers of 1991-1993, 2006,
2007, and 2010-2012 included Chatham Strait (near the action area). The
average density estimate for all survey years in Chatham Strait was
0.013 harbor porpoise per square km (Dahlheim et al., 2015). Surveys in
1997, 1998, and 1999 reported an average harbor porpoise density of
.033 per square km in Southeast Alaska (Hobbs and Waite 2010). Based
density estimates from Hobbs and Waite (2010), a more conservative
density estimate, we estimate that approximately 2.6 (.033 * 78.9)
harbor porpoises could occur daily within the 78.9 square km Level B
harassment zone. Therefore: 2.6 harbor porpoises per day * 93 days of
potential exposure = 242 potential exposures. Each of these exposures
will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested
nor authorized due to shutdown measures.
Dall's Porpoises
Dall's porpoise are non-migratory; therefore, our exposure
estimates are not dependent on season. Based on anecdotal evidence
citing rare occurrences of the species in the action area, we
anticipate approximately one observation of a Dall's porpoise pod in
the Level B harassment zone each week during construction (Lewis, S.,
pers. comm.). Based on an average pod size of 3.7 (Wade et al., 2003),
we estimate 49 Dall's porpoise could be exposed to Level B harassment
noise during the 93 day construction period (i.e., 3.7 individuals per
week * 13.2 weeks of potential exposure = 48.84 (rounded up to 49)
total potential exposures). Each of these exposures will result in
Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized
due to shutdown measures.
Killer Whales
Local marine mammal experts indicate that approximately one killer
whale pod is observed in Tenakee Inlet each month, year-round (Lewis,
S., pers. comm.). It is assumed that all three killer whale stocks are
equally likely to occur in the area because no data exist on relative
abundance of the three stocks in Tenakee Inlet. The exposure estimate
is conservatively based on a resident pod size, which has been
quantified and is known to be a larger than other stocks. Resident
killer whales occur in a mean group size of 19.3 during the fall in
southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Therefore, we assume that a
total of approximately 60 killer whales could be exposed to Level B
harassment over the course of the project (i.e., (19.3 individuals per
pod * 1 pods per month) * 3.1 months = 59.83 (rounded up to 60)). Since
there are no data that exist for killer whale stocks in Tenakee Inlet,
60 Level B takes were applied to each stock. Each of these exposures
will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested
nor authorized due to shutdown measures.
Humpback Whales
Humpback whales are present in Tenakee Inlet year-round. Local
experts indicate that as many as 12 humpback whales are present on some
days from spring through fall, with lower numbers during the winter (S.
Lewis and M. Dahlheim, pers. comm.). We conservatively estimate that
half of those, or six individuals on average, could be exposed to Level
B harassment during each day of pile installation and removal,
therefore: 6 humpback whales per day * 93 days of exposure = 558
potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B
take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to
shutdown measures.
Minke Whales
Minke whales may be present in Tenakee Inlet year-round. Their
abundance throughout southeast Alaska is very low, and anecdotal
reports have not included minke whales near the project area. However,
minke whales are distributed throughout a wide variety of habitats and
could occur near the project area. Therefore, we conservatively
estimate that one minke whale could be exposed to Level B harassment
each month during construction or a total of three minke whales during
the 93-day construction period. Each of these exposures will result in
Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized
due to shutdown measures.

Mitigation Measures

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

[[Page 29757]]

grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of
such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter
not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants
for incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure shall 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.
In addition to the measures described later in this section,
ADOT&PF shall employ the following standard mitigation measures:
Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all
pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, to explain
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures;
For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(e.g., standard barges, tug boats), 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. This
type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of
the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual
monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted;
For those marine mammals for which Level B take has not
been requested, in-water pile installation/removal and drilling shall
shut down immediately when the animals are sighted;
If Level B take reaches the authorized limit for an
authorized species, pile installation shall be stopped as these species
approach the Level B zone to avoid additional take of them.
The following measures shall apply to ADOT&PFs mitigation
requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zone for Level A--For all pile driving/
removal and drilling activities, ADOT&PF shall establish a shutdown
zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area
within which shutdown of activity shall occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). For
all in-water heavy machinery activities, a 10 meter shutdown zone will
be required. In addition, during impact installation of 24-inch and 30-
inch steel piles at a frequency of 2 or 3 piles per day, PSOs shall
implement a 200-meter shutdown zone for Dall's porpoises, minke whales,
and humpback whales (low- and high-frequency cetaceans). The placement
of PSOs during all pile driving and drilling activities (described in
detail in the Monitoring and Reporting Section) shall ensure that each
shutdown zone is visible during pile driving and drilling activities.
All shutdown zones, with their corresponding sound source type are
presented in Table 6 below.

Table 6 Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving/Drilling Activities for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone radii (meters)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound source type High-
Low-frequency Mid-frequency frequency Phocid Otariid
cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans pinnipeds pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Vibratory pile driving/ 100 100 100 50 50
removal, drilling, and impact
pile driving (all impact
pilling activities not
expressed in the column
directly below)................
Impact Installation of 24-inch 200 100 200 100 100
and 30-inch steel piles at a
frequency of two or three piles
per day........................
3--In Water Heavy Machinery 10 10 10 10 10
Activities (Non pile driving
and drilling activities).......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishment of Monitoring Zones for Level B--ADOT&PF shall
establish Level B disturbance zones or zones of influence (ZOI) which
are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB rms threshold
for impact driving and the 120 dB rms threshold during vibratory
driving and drilling. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by
establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown
zones. Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate
the presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown
zone and thus prepare for a potential cease of activity should the
animal enter the shutdown zone. The Level B zones are depicted in Table
4. As shown, the largest Level B zone is equal to 78.9 km\2\, making it
impossible for the PSOs to view the entire harassment area. Due to
this, Level B exposures shall be recorded and extrapolated based upon
the number of observed take and the percentage of the Level B zone that
was not visible.
Soft Start--The use of a soft-start procedure are believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors
shall be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer
at 40 percent energy, each strike followed by no less than a 30-second
waiting period. This procedure shall be conducted a total of three
times before impact pile driving

[[Page 29758]]

begins. Soft Start is not required during vibratory pile driving and
removal activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30
minutes or longer occurs, the observer shall observe the shutdown and
monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone shall be
cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for
that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the
shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left
the zone or has not been observed for 30 minutes (for cetaceans) and 15
minutes (for pinnipeds). If the Level B harassment zone has been
observed for 30 minutes and non-permitted species are not present
within the zone, soft start procedures can commence and work can
continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the Level B zone.
When a marine mammal permitted for Level B take is present in the Level
B harassment zone, piling activities may begin and Level B take shall
be recorded. As stated above, if the entire Level B zone is not visible
at the start of construction, piling or drilling activities can begin.
If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of
both the Level B and shutdown zone shall commence.

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 shall 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
action area. Effective reporting is critical both for 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.

Visual Monitoring

Monitoring shall be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving and removal activities. In addition,
observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence,
regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral
reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed.
Pile driving activities include the time to install or 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 thirty minutes.
PSOs shall be land-based observers. A primary PSO shall be placed
at the terminal where pile driving shall occur. A second observer shall
range the uplands on foot or by ATV via Tenakee Ave., and go from Grave
Point east of the harbor up and west of the project site to get a full
view of the Level A zone and as much of the Level B zone as possible.
PSOs shall scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting scopes,
and shall use a handheld GPS or range-finder device to verify the
distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs shall be
trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required
to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In
addition, monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, who
shall 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. Qualified observers
are trained and/or experienced professionals, with the following
minimum qualifications:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target.
Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel).
Observers must have their CVs/resumes submitted to and
approved by NMFS
Advanced education in biological science or related field
(i.e., undergraduate degree or
higher).Observers may substitute education or training for
experience.
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience).
At least one observer must have prior experience working
as an observer.
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates 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.
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.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report shall be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal
activities. It shall include an overall description of work completed,
a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
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);

[[Page 29759]]

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.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report shall constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments 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,
such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, ADOT&PF shall
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The
report shall include the following information:
Description of the incident;
Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state,
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 shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ADOT&PF to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ADOT&PF shall not be able
to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
ADOT&PF shall immediately 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. The report shall include the same
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities shall be able
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS
shall work with ADOT&PF to determine whether modifications in the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal and the lead PSO 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), ADOT&PF shall 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. ADOT&PF shall provide photographs, video footage (if
available), or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

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).
As stated in the mitigation section, shutdown zones equal to or
exceeding Level A isopleths shown in Table 4 shall be implemented, and
in this case, Level A take is not anticipated nor authorized.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving and removal at
the ferry terminal, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary.
Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any
visual cues they are disturbed by activities (as noted during
modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the
area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not
observable such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short
duration of noise-generating activities per day and that pile driving,
removal, and drilling shall occur for 93 days, any harassment shall be
temporary. In addition, the project was designed with relatively small-
diameter piles, which shall avoid the elevated noise impacts associated
with larger piles. In addition, there are no known biologically
important areas near the project zone that shall be moderately or
significantly impacted by the construction activities. The region of
Tenakee Inlet where the project shall take place is located in a
developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. Although there is a
harbor seal haulout approximately one km south of the project site, it
shall not be located within the project's Level B zone.
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.
There are no known biologically important areas within the
project area.
ADOT&PF shall implement mitigation measures such as
vibratory driving piles to the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts,
and shut downs.
Monitoring reports from similar work in Alaska have
documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
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
activity shall

[[Page 29760]]

have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.

Small Numbers

As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities.
Overall, ADOT&PF proposes 15,566 total Level B takes of these
marine mammals. Table 7 below shows take as a percent of population for
each of the species listed above.

Table 7--Summary of the Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to Level B Harassment Sound
Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
exposures to individuals
Level B potentially Stock Percent of
Species DPS/Stock harassment exposed to abundance population 1
total and by Level B
stock harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion.............. Eastern DPS..... 5,351 115 41,638 <0.3
Western DPS..... 1,159 25 53,303 <0.1
Harbor seal................... Glacier Bay/Icy 8,144 259 7,210 3.6
Strait.
Harbor porpoise............... Southeast Alaska 242 242 975 24.8
Dall's porpoise............... Alaska.......... 49 49 83,400 <0.1
Killer whale.................. West Coast 60 60 243 24.7
transient.
Alaska resident. 60 60 2,347 2.6
Northern 60 60 290 20.7
Resident.
Humpback whale................ Mexico DPS/ 558 558 10,103 5.5
Central North
Pacific.
Minke whale................... Alaska.......... 3 3 N/A N/A
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ................ 15,686 1,434 N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The percent of population is based on the proportion of take that is expected to occur from each stock based
on abundance (see Table 1). Killer whale stocks are assumed to be equally likely to occur.
N/A: Not Applicable or no stock population assessment is available.

Table 7 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to
received noise levels causing Level B harassment for the work at the
Tenakee Springs Ferry Terminal. Our analysis shows that less than 25
percent of each affected stock could be taken by harassment. Therefore,
the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species shall 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 harbor porpoise, the abundance estimates used in
the percentage of population were taken from inland Southeast Alaska
waters. These abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0) and
are likely conservative, therefore it is expected for the percentage of
population that shall be taken to be overestimated. In addition, high
percentage totals for northern resident (20.7 percent) and western
transient (24.7 percent) killer whales were based on the possibility
that all 60 takes for killer whales shall occur for each stock, which
is a highly unlikely scenario.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including
the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals shall
be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or
stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks shall
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. The project is
not known to occur in an important subsistence hunting area. It is a
developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. However, ADOT&PF
plans to provide advanced public notice of construction activities to
reduce construction impacts on local residents, ferry travelers,
adjacent businesses, and other users of the Tenakee Springs ferry
terminal and nearby areas. This shall include notification to local
Alaska Native tribes that may have members who hunt marine mammals for
subsistence. Of the marine mammals considered in this IHA application,
only harbor seals are known to be used for subsistence in the project
area. If any tribes express concerns regarding project impacts to
subsistence hunting of marine mammals, further communication between
shall take place, including provision of any project information, and
clarification of any mitigation and minimization measures that may
reduce potential impacts to marine mammals.
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 that there shall not be an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses from ADOT&PF's 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 NMFS' Alaska Regional
Office, whenever we propose to

[[Page 29761]]

authorize take for endangered or threatened species.
NMFS Alaska Region issued a Biological Opinion to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources which concluded the city dock and improvement
project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of WDPS
Steller sea lions or Mexico DPS humpback whales or adversely modify
critical habitat because none exists within the action area.

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 action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment. This action is consistent with categories of
activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.

Authorization

As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to
ADOT&PF for conducting the described construction activities related to
city dock and ferry terminal improvements from June 1, 2019 through May
31, 2020 provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.

Dated: June 20, 2018.
Elaine T. Saiz,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13591 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.