Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Cook Inlet, 30991-31016 [2019-12568]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30991-31016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12568]



[[Page 30991]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 217

[Docket No. 171213999-9439-01]
RIN 0648-BH44


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 
Project in Cook Inlet

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments and information.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Alaska Gasline 
Development Corporation (AGDC) for authorization to take marine mammals 
incidental to Alaska LNG Project in Cook Inlet, over the course of five 
years (2020-2025). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 
NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, and requests 
comments on the proposed regulations. NMFS will consider public 
comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the 
requested MMPA authorization, and agency responses will be summarized 
in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 29, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0064, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0064, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National 
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910-3225.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. 
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required 
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic 
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file 
formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, 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-other-energy-activities-renewable. In case of 
problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed 
above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings must be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
    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).

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    Accordingly, NMFS plans to adopt the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's (FERC's) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), provided 
our independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes 
adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of 
issuing the Letter of Authorization (LOA). NMFS is a cooperating agency 
on the FERC's EIS.
    The FERC's EIS will be made available for public comment at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
LOA request.

Summary of Request

    On April 18, 2017, NMFS received a request from AGDC for a LOA to 
take marine mammals incidental to constructing LNG facilities in Cook 
Inlet. The application was deemed adequate and complete on March 14, 
2018. AGDC's request is for takes of a small number of five species of 
marine

[[Page 30992]]

mammals by Level B harassment. On April 11, 2018, NMFS published a 
Notice of Receipt announcing the receipt of AGDC's LOA application (83 
FR 15556). Further analysis by NMFS concludes that potential effects to 
marine mammals from AGDC's activity could result in Level A harassment. 
Neither AGDC nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result 
from this activity. However, since AGDC's LNG facility construction 
activities are expected to last for five years, an LOA is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    AGDC proposes to construct facilities to transport and offload LNG 
in Cook Inlet, AK, for export. The Project activities include:
     Construction of the proposed Marine Terminal in Cook 
Inlet, including construction of a temporary Marine Terminal Material 
Offloading Facility (Marine Terminal MOF) and a permanent Product 
Loading Facility (PLF).
     Construction of the Mainline (main pipeline) across Cook 
Inlet, including the potential construction of a temporary Mainline 
Material Offloading Facility (Mainline MOF) on the west side of Cook 
Inlet.
    Components of proposed construction activities in Cook Inlet that 
have the potential to expose marine mammals to received acoustic levels 
that could result in take include:
     Vibratory and impact pile driving associated with Marine 
Terminal MOF and PLF construction.
     Anchor handling associated with pipelay across the Cook 
Inlet.

Dates and Duration

    AGDC plans to start the Alaska LNG facilities construction on March 
31, 2020, and complete it by the end of March 2025. Construction 
activities would be divided into phases, with all construction 
occurring between April and October from March 2020 to December 2024. 
During the construction season, crews will be working 12 hours per day, 
6 days per week.

Specific Geographic Region

    The Alaska LNG facilities, which include a Marine Terminal and the 
Mainline crossing, will be constructed in Cook Inlet. The Marine 
Terminal would be constructed adjacent to the proposed onshore LNG 
Plant near Nikiski, Alaska.
    In addition, a Mainline Material Offloading Facility (Mainline MOF) 
may be constructed on the west side of Cook Inlet to support 
installation of the Cook Inlet shoreline crossing and onshore 
construction between the Beluga Landing shoreline crossing and the 
Yentna River. The Mainline MOF would be located near the existing 
Beluga Landing.
    A map of the Alaska LNG facilities action area is provided in 
Figure 1 below and is also available in Figures 2 to 4 in the LOA 
application.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 30993]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JN19.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    The construction of the Alaska LNG facilities includes the 
construction of a product loading facility, marine terminal material 
offloading facility, a mainline material offloading facility, and the 
Mainline crossing of Cook Inlet. For all construction activities, each 
season extends from 1 April through 31 October, during which 
construction crews would be working 12 hours per day, six days per 
week.

[[Page 30994]]

    The following provides a detailed description of the Alaska LNG 
facilities to be constructed.
Product Loading Facility (PLF)
    The proposed PLF would be a permanent facility used to load LNG 
carriers (LNGCs) for export. It consists of two loading platforms, two 
berths, a Marine Operations Platform, and an access trestle that 
supports the piping that delivers LNG from shore to LNGCs and includes 
all the equipment to dock LNGCs. Analyzed elements of the PLF are shown 
in Figures 3 and 4 of the LOA application, and are described as 
follows.
     PLF Loading Platforms--Two loading platforms, one located 
at either end of the north-south portion of the trestle, would support 
the loading arm package, a gangway, supporting piping, cabling, and 
equipment. The platforms would be supported above the seafloor on 
steel-jacketed structures called quadropods;
     PLF Berths--Two berths would be located in natural water 
depths greater than -53 feet (ft) mean lower low water (MLLW) and would 
be approximately 1,600 feet apart at opposite ends of the north-south 
portion of the trestle. Each berth would have four concrete pre-cast 
breasting dolphins and six concrete pre-cast mooring dolphins. The 
mooring and breasting dolphins would be used to secure vessels 
alongside the berth for cargo loading operations. The mooring and 
breasting dolphins would be supported over the seabed on quadropods. A 
catwalk, supported on two-pile bents, would connect the mooring 
dolphins to the loading platforms;
     Marine Operations Platform--A Marine Operations Platform 
would be located along the east-west portion of the access trestle 
(Figure 4 of the LOA application) and would support the proposed Marine 
Terminal Building, an electrical substation, piping, cabling, and other 
equipment used to monitor the loading operations. The platform would be 
supported above the seafloor on four-pile bents; and
     Access Trestle--This structure is T-shaped with a long 
east-west oriented section and a shorter north-south oriented section 
and carries pipe rack, roadway, and walkway. The pipe rack contains LNG 
loading system pipelines, a fire water pipeline, utility lines, power 
and instrument cables, and lighting. The east-west portion of the 
trestle extends from shore, seaward, for a distance of approximately 
3,650 feet and would be supported on three-pile and four-pile bents at 
120-foot intervals. The north-south oriented portion of the access 
trestle is approximately 1,560 feet long, and is supported on five-pile 
quadropods.
    Construction of the PLF and berths would be both overhead 
construction (conducted with equipment located on a cantilever bridge 
extending from shore) and marine construction (conducted with equipment 
located on barges/vessel).
    The PLF would be constructed over the course of four ice-free 
seasons (Seasons 1-4); however, Season 1 activities associated with PLF 
construction would include only installation of onshore portions of the 
PLF and are therefore not described or analyzed in this document. 
Activities in Seasons 2 through 4 are described below.
    In Season 2, the marine construction spread would be mobilized, and 
the cantilever bridge would be commissioned. A total of 35 bents and 
quadropod structures would be installed for part of the east-west 
access trestle, and eight quadropods would be installed to support the 
berth loading platforms.
    In Season 3, the remainder of the bents for the east-west access 
trestle would be installed. Additionally, bents supporting the Marine 
Operations Platform and north-south trestle would be installed. A total 
of 26 bent and quadropod structures would be installed.
    In Season 4, installation of the mooring quadropods would be 
completed, and the bents supporting the catwalk between the loadout 
platforms and the mooring dolphins would be installed. A total of 18 
bent and quadropod structures would be installed.
    All PLF bents and quadropods are expected to be installed with 
impact hammers. The anticipated production rate for installation of the 
bents is one bent per six construction days, and for quadropods it is 
one quadropod per eight work days. Pile driving is expected to occur 
during only two of the six days for bents and two of the eight days for 
quadropods. It is also assumed the impact hammer would only be operated 
approximately 25 percent of time during the two days of pile driving.
Marine Terminal Material Offloading Facility (Marine Terminal MOF)
    The proposed Marine Terminal MOF, to be located near the PLF in 
Nikiski, would consist of three berths and a quay that would be used 
during construction of the Liquefaction Facility to enable direct 
deliveries of equipment modules, bulk materials, construction 
equipment, and other cargo to minimize the transport of large and heavy 
loads over road infrastructure.
    The Marine Terminal MOF quay would be approximately 1,050 feet long 
and 600 feet wide, which would provide sufficient space for cargo 
discharge operations and accommodate 200,000 square feet of staging 
area. It would have a general dock elevation of +32 feet MLLW.
    The quay would have an outer wall consisting of combi-wall 
(combination of sheet piles and pipe piles) tied back to a sheet pile 
anchor wall, and 11 sheet pile coffer cells, backfilled with granular 
materials.
    Berths at the Marine Terminal MOF would include:
     One Lift-on/Lift-off (Lo-Lo) berth with a maintained depth 
alongside of -32 feet MLLW;
     One Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro-Ro) berth with a maintained depth 
alongside of -32 feet MLLW; and
     One grounded barge bed with a ground pad elevation of +10 
feet MLLW.
    The Temporary MOF has been designed as a temporary facility and 
would be removed early in operations when it is no longer needed to 
support construction of the Liquefaction Facility.
    The Temporary MOF would be constructed over the course of two 
construction seasons (Seasons 1 and 2).
    The combi-wall and the first six of eleven coffer cells would be 
installed in Season 1. An equal amount of sheet pile anchor wall would 
be associated with the combi-wall, but this is not considered in the 
analysis as the anchor wall would be driven into fill and would not 
generate substantial underwater sound. Six 24-inch template pipe piles 
would be installed with a vibratory hammer before the sheet pile is 
installed for each coffer cell and then removed when coffer cell 
installation is complete. The remaining five coffer cells and fill 
would be installed in Season 2, along with the quadropods for the 
dolphins for the Ro-Ro berth.
    The Marine Terminal MOF would be constructed using both land-based 
(from shore and subsequently from constructed portions of the Marine 
Terminal MOF) and marine construction methods. The anticipated 
production rate for installation of combi-wall and coffer cells is 25 
linear feet per day per crew, with two crews operating, and vibratory 
hammers operating 40 percent of each 12-hour construction day. The 
anticipated production rate for quadropod installation is the same as 
described in Section 1, above.
    Dredging would be conducted over two ice free seasons. Dredging at 
the

[[Page 30995]]

Marine Terminal MOF during the first season of marine construction may 
be conducted with either an excavator or clamshell (both mechanical 
dredges). Various bucket sizes may be used. Sediment removed would be 
placed in split hull or scow/hopper barges tended by tugs that would 
transport the material to the location of dredge material placement.
    Dredging at the Marine Terminal MOF during the second season may be 
conducted with either a hydraulic (cutter head) dredger or a mechanical 
dredger. For a hydraulic dredger, the dredged material would be pumped 
from the dredge area to the disposal location or pumped into split-hull 
barges for transport to the placement location. If split-hull barges 
are used rather than direct piping of material, a manifold system may 
be set up to load multiple barges simultaneously. For a mechanical 
dredger, two or more sets of equipment would likely be required to 
achieve total dredging production to meet the Project schedule. 
Personnel transfer, support equipment, and supply would be similar to 
the first season. However, due to the low activity level and source 
levels from dredging, we do not consider there would be take of marine 
mammals. Therefore, dredging is not further analyzed in this document.
Mainline Material Offloading Facility (Mainline MOF)
    A Mainline MOF may be required on the west side of Cook Inlet to 
support installation of the Cook Inlet shoreline crossing, and onshore 
construction between the South of Beluga Landing shoreline crossing and 
the Yentna River. The Mainline MOF would be located near, but at a 
reasonable distance, from the existing Beluga Landing. Use of the 
existing landing is not considered to be feasible.
    The Mainline MOF would consist of a quay, space for tugs, and 
berths including:
     Lo-Lo Berth for unloading pipes and construction 
materials;
     Ro-Ro Berth and ramp dedicated to Ro-Ro operations; and
     Fuel berth dedicated to unloading fuel.
    The quay would be 450 feet long (along the shoreline) and 310 feet 
wide (extending into the Cook Inlet). A Ro-Ro ramp (approximately 80 
feet by 120 feet) would be constructed adjacent to the quay. Both the 
quay and the Ro-Ro ramp would consist of anchored sheet pile walls 
backed by granular fill. The sources for the granular material would be 
onshore. Surfacing on the quay would be crushed rock. Some fill 
material for the quay and Ro-Ro ramp are expected to be generated by 
excavation of the access road. Any additional needed fill materials and 
crushed rock for surfacing would be barged in.
    The quay and the Ro-Ro ramp are located within the 0-foot contour, 
so berths would be practically dry at low tide. No dredging is planned; 
vessels would access the berths and ground themselves during high tide 
cycles. The proposed top level of the Mainline MOF is +36 feet MLLW, 
which is about 11 feet above Mean Higher High Water (MHHW).
    Approximately 1,270 feet of sheet pile would be installed for 
construction of the quay and Ro-Ro ramp, and a corresponding length of 
sheet pile would be installed as anchor wall; however, only 670 feet of 
sheet pile would be installed in the waters of Cook Inlet. The 
remainder would be installed as anchor wall in fill material, or in the 
intertidal area when the tide is out, and would not result in 
underwater sound.
    The Mainline MOF would be constructed in a single construction 
season (Season 1). A break-down of activities per season is provided 
below. Crews are expected to work 12 hours per day, six days per week. 
The sheet pile would be installed using marine equipment, with the 
first 50 percent of embedment conducted using a vibratory hammer and 
the remaining 50 percent conducted using an impact hammer. Hammers 
would be expected to be operated either 25 percent of a 12-hour 
construction day (impact hammer) or 40 percent of a 12-hour 
construction day (vibratory hammer).
Mainline Crossing of Cook Inlet
    The proposed Mainline, a 42-inch-diameter, natural gas pipeline, 
would cross the Cook Inlet shoreline on the west side of the inlet 
(north landfall) south of Beluga Landing at pipeline milepost (MP) 
766.3, traverse Cook Inlet in a generally southward direction for 
approximately 26.7 miles, and cross the east Cook Inlet shoreline near 
Suneva Lake at MP 793.1 (south landfall). The pipe would be trenched 
into the seafloor and buried from the shoreline out to a water depth of 
approximately 35-45 feet MLLW on both sides of the inlet, approximately 
8,800 feet from the north landfall and 6,600 feet from the south 
landfall. Burial depth (depth of top of pipe below the seafloor) in 
these areas would be 3-6 feet. Seaward of these sections, the concrete 
coated pipeline would be placed on the seafloor. Seafloor that would be 
directly affected by construction and operation of the Cook Inlet 
crossing of the Mainline is itemized in Table 6. Additional footprint 
would be impacted by the use of anchors to hold the pipelay vessel in 
place while installing the pipeline on the seafloor.
    Geophysical surveys would be conducted just prior to pipeline 
construction. A detailed bathymetric profile (longitudinal and cross) 
would be conducted. Types of geophysical equipment expected to be used 
for the surveys could include:
     Single-beam echosounder planned for use during this 
program operate at frequencies greater than 200 kilohertz (kHz);
     Multi-beam echo sounders planned for this program operate 
at frequencies greater than 200 kHz;
     Side-scan sonar system planned for use during this program 
operate at a frequency of 400 and 900 kHz; and
     Magnetometer. These instruments do not emit sound.
    Operation of geophysical equipment such as echosounders and side-
scan sonars at frequencies greater than 200 kHz are not considered to 
result in takes of marine mammals due to the extremely high frequencies 
emitted that are above the range of marine mammals' hearing thresholds. 
Magnetometers do not emit underwater sound. Therefore, geophysical 
surveys are not evaluated further in this document.
    The pipeline would be trenched and buried in the nearshore portions 
of the route across the Cook Inlet.
    The nearshore portion of the trench is expected to be constructed 
using amphibious or barge-based excavators. This portion of the trench 
would extend from the shoreline out to a transition water depth where a 
dredge vessel can be employed. On the west side of the inlet (Beluga 
Landing) this is expected to be from the shore out 655 feet, and on the 
east side (Suneva Lake) from the shoreline out 645 feet. The trench 
basis is to excavate a mustow slope trench that would not retain 
sediments (i.e., a self-cleaning trench). A backhoe dredge may also be 
required to work in this portion of the crossing.
    From the transition water depth to water depths of the -35 feet or 
-45 feet MLLW, a trailing suction hopper dredger would be used to 
excavate a trench for the pipeline. Alternative burial techniques, such 
as plowing, backhoe dredging, or clamshell dredging, would be 
considered if conditions become problematic for the dredger. After 
installation of the nearshore pipelines, a jet sled or mechanical 
burial sled could be used to achieve post dredge burial depths.
    Pipeline joints would be welded together onshore in 1,000-foot-long 
strings and laid on the ground surface

[[Page 30996]]

in an orientation that approximates the offshore alignment. A pipe pull 
barge would be anchored offshore near the seaward end of the trench, 
and would then be used to pull the pipe strings from their onshore 
position, out into the trench.
    Following pipeline installation, the trench is expected to backfill 
naturally through the movement of seafloor sediments. If manual 
backfilling is required, the backfill would be placed by reversing the 
flow of the trailing suction hopper dredger used offshore (see below) 
or mechanically with the use of excavators.
    Seaward of the trenched sections, the pipeline would be laid on the 
seafloor across Cook Inlet using conventional pipelay vessel methods. 
The pipelay vessel would likely employ 12 anchors to keep it positioned 
during pipelay and provide resistance as it is winched ahead 80 feet 
each time an additional 80-foot section of pipe is added/welded on the 
pipe string. Dynamic positioning may be used in addition to the 
conventional mooring system. Mid-line buoys may be used on the anchor 
chains when crossing other subsea infrastructure (i.e., pipelines and 
cables). A pipelay rate of 2,000 to 2,500 feet per 24-hour period is 
expected. It is anticipated that three anchor handling attendant tugs 
would be used to repeatedly reposition the anchors, thereby maintaining 
proper position and permitting forward movement. The primary underwater 
sound sources of concern would be from the anchor handling tugs (AHTs) 
during the anchor handling for the pipelay vessel.
    The pipeline crossing of Cook Inlet would be installed in two 
consecutive construction seasons (Seasons 3 and 4). Work from the 
pipelay vessel and pull barge would be conducted 24 hours per day, 
seven days per week, until the work planned for that season is 
completed. Anchor handling durations were estimated differently for the 
two construction seasons. Anchor handling is expected to be conducted 
25 percent of the time that the pull barge is on site in Season 3. The 
estimate for anchor handling duration in Season 4 was based on the 
proposed route length, the total numbers of individual anchors moves, 
and the estimated time required to retrieve and reset each anchor 
(approximately 30 minutes per anchor to retrieve and reset). A break-
down of activities per season is provided below.
Season 3
     Conduct onshore enabling works including establishing 
winch/laydown and welding area, and excavation of a trench through 
onshore sections of the shore approach (open cut the shoreline).
     Excavate trench in very nearshore waters using land and 
amphibious excavation equipment.
     Conduct pre-lay excavation of the pipe trench out to 
depths of -35 to -45 feet MLLW using various subsea excavation methods.
     Install the pipe in the nearshore trenches using a pull 
barge.
    Anchor handling would occur for approximately six (5.75 days) 24-
hour periods in Season 3.
Season 4
     Lay unburied offshore section of Mainline across Cook 
Inlet using conventional pipelay vessel. The Applicant estimates that 
anchor handling would occur over 13 24-hour periods in Season 4.
     Tie-in the offshore section to the buried nearshore 
sections on both sides of the Cook Inlet.
     Flood, hydrotest, and dry the Mainline pipeline with Cook 
Inlet.
    A summary of pile driving activities for the entire Alaska LNG 
facilities construction, breaking down by seasons and project elements, 
is provided in Table 1.

                                    Table 1--In-Water Pile Driving Associated With Alaska LNG Facilities Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Number strikes/
             Element                    Driving method        Pile type & size     Pile number or length    hr (impact      Hours pile      Number days
                                                                                                               only)        driving/day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Season 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Terminal MOF combi wall...  Vibratory..............  60-in steel pipe....  35....................              NA             4.8               5
Marine Terminal MOF combi wall...  Vibratory..............  Sheet pile..........  1,075 ft..............              NA             4.8               5
Marine Terminal MOF cell.........  Vibratory..............  18-in steel pipe....  36....................              NA             4.8              12
Marine Terminal MOF cell.........  Vibratory..............  Sheet pile..........  2,454 ft..............              NA             4.8              11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Season 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Terminal MOF Cell.........  Vibratory..............  18-in steel pipe....  30....................              NA             4.8              11
Marine Terminal MOF cell.........  Vibratory..............  Sheet pile..........  2,447 ft..............              NA             4.8              11
Marine Terminal MOF Ro-Ro dolphin  Impact.................  24-in steel pipe....  7.....................           1,560               3               2
 quads.
Marine Terminal MOF Ro-Ro dolphin  Impact.................  48-in steel pipe....  28....................           1,560               3               2
 quads.
Mainline MOF.....................  Vibratory..............  Sheet pile..........  670 ft................              NA             4.8               3
Mainline MOF.....................  Impact.................  Sheet pile..........  670 ft................           1,560               3               2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Season 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berth 1..........................  Impact.................  48-in steel pipe....  20....................           1,560               3               2
Berth 2..........................  Impact.................  48-in steel pipe....  20....................           1,560               3               2
N-S access trestle...............  Impact.................  48-in steel pipe....  40....................           1,560               3               3
E-W access trestle...............  Impact.................  60-in steel pipe....  73....................           1,560               3              11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Season 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breasting dolphin berths 1 & 2...  Impact.................  Steel pipe 48-in....  8.....................           1,560               3               1
Breasting dolphin berths 1 & 2...  Impact.................  60-in steel pipe....  32....................           1,560               3               3
Mooring dolphin..................  Impact.................  48-in steel pipe....  2.....................           1,560               3               1
Mooring dolphin..................  Impact.................  60-in steel pipe....  8.....................           1,560               3               1
N-S access trestle...............  Impact.................  48-in steel pipe....  30....................           1,560               3               3

[[Page 30997]]

 
E-W access trestle...............  Impact.................  60-in steel pipe....  28....................           1,560               3               4
Operation platform...............  Impact.................  60-in steel pipe....  12....................           1,560               3               2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Season 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mooring dolphin..................  Impact.................  48-in steel pipe....  10....................           1,560               3               2
Mooring dolphin..................  Impact.................  60-in steel pipe....  40....................           1,560               3               4
Catwalk..........................  Impact.................  60-in steel pipe....  8.....................           1,560               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of anchor handling activities associated to mooring, 
trenching, and pipe laying are provided in Table 2.

               Table 2--Duration of Anchor Handling Associated With Alaska LNG Facilities Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Season                                  Activity                  Hours/day         Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..........................................  Mooring............................            6.00               9
3..........................................  Pipe trenching.....................            6.00              14
4..........................................  Pipeline days at a rate of 2,500               6.00              53
                                              feet per day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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; https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/18114) and more general 
information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral 
descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
upper Cook Inlet and summarizes information related to the population 
or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and 
potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.

                                    Table 3--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/ MMPA status;   Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               S \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -; N                20,990 (0.05, 20,125).        624        132
Family Balaenopteridae:
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaneagliae.  Central North Pacific..  E/D; Y              10,103 (0.300, 7,890).         83        8.5
    Fin whale.......................  Balaenoptera physalus..  Northeast Pacific......  E/D; Y              916 \4\ (0.39, 916)...        3.5       >1.3
Family Delphinidae:
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Eastern North Pacific    -; N                2,347 (NA, 2,347).....         24          1
                                                                Alaska Resident.
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Cook Inlet.............  E/D; Y              312 (0.10, 287).......   \5\ 0.57          0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Gulf of Alaska.........  -; N                31,046 (2.14, NA).....        unk         72
    Dall's porpoise.................  Phocoenoides dali......  Alaska.................  -; N                83,400 (0.097, NA)....        unk         38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -; N                296,750 (NA, 153,337).      9,200        389
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Western U.S............  E/D; Y              53,303 (NA, 53,303)...        320         31
Family Phocidae (earless seals):

[[Page 30998]]

 
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  Cook Inlet/Shelikof      -; N                27,386 (NA, 25,651)...        770       0.04
                                                                Strait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region#reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
  with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Fin whale estimate is based on survey conducted in 2015 in the Gulf of Alaska, but this is the best available information for use here.
\5\ Because this stock does not meet the assumption that it will increase when human-caused mortality is reduced, inherent to the use of the PBR, the
  calculated value for PBR is likely biased and any removals from this stock will likely further prevent recovery.

    Marine mammal species that could potentially occur in the proposed 
construction areas are included in Table 3. Detailed discussion of 
these species is provided in the LOA application and summary 
information is provided below.
    In addition, sea otters may be found in Cook Inlet. However, sea 
otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not 
considered further in this document.
Humpback Whale
    The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins. In 
winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical 
waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Humpback whales in the 
high latitudes of the North Pacific Ocean are seasonal migrants that 
feed on euphausiids and small schooling fishes (Nemoto, 1957, 1959; 
Clapham and Mead, 1999). The humpback whale population was considerably 
reduced as a result of intensive commercial exploitation during the 
20th century.
    The historical summer feeding range of humpback whales in the North 
Pacific encompassed coastal and inland waters around the Pacific Rim 
from Point Conception, California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and the 
Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian Islands to the Kamchatka 
Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk and north of the Bering Strait 
(Zenkovich, 1954; Nemoto, 1957; Tomlin, 1967; Johnson and Wolman, 
1984). Historically, the Asian wintering area extended from the South 
China Sea east through the Philippines, Ryukyu Retto, Ogasawara Gunto, 
Mariana Islands, and Marmust Islands (Rice, 1998). Humpback whales are 
currently found throughout this historical range. Most of the current 
winter range of humpback whales in the North Pacific is relatively well 
known, with aggregations of whales in Japan, the Philippines, Hawaii, 
Mexico, and Central America. The winter range includes the main islands 
of the Hawaiian archipelago, with the greatest concentration along the 
west side of Maui. In Mexico, the winter breeding range includes waters 
around the southern part of the Baja California peninsula, the central 
portions of the Pacific coast of mainland Mexico, and the Revillagigedo 
Islands off the mainland coast. The winter range also extends from 
southern Mexico into Central America, including Guatemala, El Salvador, 
Nicaragua, and Costa Rica (Calambokidis et al., 2008).
    Although there is considerable distributional overlap in the 
humpback whale stocks that use Alaskan waters, the whales seasonally 
found in lower Cook Inlet are probably of the Central North Pacific 
stock (Barlow et al., 2011; Allen and Angliss 2015).
    Humpback whale use of Cook Inlet has been observed to be confined 
to Lower Cook Inlet; the whales have been regularly seen near Kachemak 
Bay during the summer months (Rugh et al., 2005). There are anecdotal 
observations of humpback whales as far north as Anchor Point, with 
recent summer observations extending to Cape Starichkof (Owl Ridge, 
2014). Humpback whales will move about their range. It is possible for 
a small number of humpback whales to be observed near the Marine 
Terminal construction area, but they are unlikely to venture north into 
the proposed Upper Cook Inlet pipeline crossings.
Fin Whale
    Within the U.S. waters in the Pacific Ocean, fin whales are found 
seasonally off the coast of North America and in the Bering Sea during 
the summer. Moore et al. (1998, 2006), Watkins et al. (2000), and 
Stafford et al. (2007) documented fin whale calling along the U.S. 
Pacific coast where rates were highest from August/September through 
February, suggesting that these may be important feeding areas during 
the winter. [Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al. (2013) speculated that both 
resident and migratory fin whales may occur off southern California 
based on shifts in peaks in fin whale calling data. 
[Scaron]irovi[cacute] et al. (2015) noted that fin whales were detected 
in the Southern California Bight year-round and found an overall 
increase in the fin whale call index from 2006 to 2012. Soule and 
Wilcock (2013) documented fin whale call rates in a presumed feeding 
area along the Juan de Fuca Ridge, offshore of northern Washington 
State, and found that some whales appear to transit northwest from 
August to October. They speculate that some fin whales migrate 
northward from the Juan de Fuca Ridge in fall and southward in winter.
    Fin whale use of Cook Inlet is rare, but they have been sighted 
during NMFS aerial surveys in Cook Inlet conducted from 2000-2016 
(Shelden et al., 2017).
Gray Whale
    The gray whale population along the west coast of the United States 
belongs to the eastern North Pacific stock. During summer and fall, 
most gray whales of that stock feed in the Chukchi, Beaufort and 
northwestern Bering Seas. An exception to this is the relatively small 
number of whales (approximately 200) that summer and feed along the 
Pacific coast between Kodiak Island, Alaska and northern California 
(Darling, 1984; Gosho et al., 2011; Calambokidis et al., 2012), 
referred to as the ``Pacific Coast Feeding Group.'' Three primary 
wintering lagoons in Baja California, Mexico, are utilized, and some 
females are known to make repeated returns to specific lagoons (Jones, 
1990).
    Gray whale use of Cook Inlet is rare, but they have been sighted 
during NMFS aerial surveys in Cook Inlet conducted from 2000-2016 
(Shelden et al., 2017).

[[Page 30999]]

Killer Whale
    Killer whales are widely distributed, although they occur in higher 
densities in colder and more productive waters (Allen and Angliss, 
2015). Two different stocks of killer whales inhabit the Cook Inlet 
region: The Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss, 2015).
    Killer whales are occasionally observed in Lower Cook Inlet, 
especially near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden et al., 2003; Rugh et 
al., 2005). A concentration of sightings near Homer and inside Kachemak 
Bay may represent high use, or high observer-effort given most records 
are from a whale-watching venture based in Homer. The few whales that 
have been photographically identified in Lower Cook Inlet belong to 
resident groups more commonly found in nearby Kenai Fjords and Prince 
William Sound (Shelden et al., 2003). Prior to the 1980s, killer whale 
sightings in Upper Cook Inlet were very rare (Rugh et al., 2005). 
During aerial surveys conducted between 1993 and 2004, killer whales 
were observed on only three flights, all in the Kachemak and English 
Bay area (Rugh et al., 2005). However, anecdotal reports of killer 
whales feeding on belugas in Upper Cook Inlet began increasing in the 
1990s, possibly in response to declines in sea lions and harbor seals 
elsewhere (Shelden et al., 2003). Observations of killer whales in 
beluga summering grounds have been implicated as a possible contributor 
to decline of Cook Inlet belugas in the 1990s, although the number of 
confirmed mortalities from killer whales is small (Shelden et al., 
2003). Recent industry monitoring programs only reported a few killer 
whale sightings (Kendall et al., 2015). The sporadic movements and 
small numbers of this species suggest that there is a rare possibility 
of encountering this whale during Marine Terminal construction and 
Mainline pipelay. There is, however, a greater possibility of 
transiting vessels associated with the Project encountering killer 
whales during transit through Lower Cook Inlet.
Beluga Whale
    The Cook Inlet beluga whale distinct population segment (DPS) is a 
small, geographically isolated, and genetically distanced population 
separated from other beluga populations by the Alaska Peninsula 
(O'Corry-Crowe et al., 1997). The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was originally 
estimated at 1,300 whales in 1979 (Calkins, 1989) and has been the 
focus of management concerns since experiencing a dramatic decline 
between 1994 and 1998, when the stock declined 47 percent, attributed 
to overharvesting by subsistence hunting (Mahoney and Shelden, 2000). 
Prior to subsistence hunting restrictions, harvest was estimated to 
annually remove 10 to 15 percent of the population (Mahoney and 
Shelden, 2000). Only five belugas have been harvested since 1999, yet 
the population has continued to decline. NMFS listed the population as 
``depleted'' in 2000 because of the decline, and as ``endangered'' 
under the ESA in 2008 when the population failed to recover following a 
moratorium on subsistence harvest.
    In April 2011, NMFS designated critical habitat for Cook Inlet 
beluga whales (76 FR 20180; April 11, 2011) in two specific areas of 
Cook Inlet:
     Area 1: All marine waters of Cook Inlet north of a line 
from the mouth of Threemile Creek (61[deg]08.5' N, 151[deg]04.4' W) 
connecting to Point Possession (61[deg]02.1' N, 150[deg]24.3' W), 
including waters of the Susitna River south of 61[deg]20.0' N, the 
Little Susitna River south of 61[deg]18.0' N, and the Chickaloon River 
north of 60[deg]53.0' N; and
     Area 2: All marine waters of Cook Inlet south of a line 
from the mouth of Threemile Creek (61[deg]08.5' N, 151[deg]04.4' W) to 
Point Possession (61[deg]02.1' N, 150[deg]24.3' W) and north of 
60[deg]15.0' N, including waters within 2 nautical miles seaward of 
mean-high high water (MHHW) along the western shoreline of Cook Inlet 
between 60[deg]15.0' N and the mouth of the Douglas River (59[deg]04.0' 
N, 153[deg]46.0' W); all waters of Kachemak Bay east of 151[deg]40.0' 
W; and waters of the Kenai River below the Warren Ames bridge at Kenai, 
Alaska.
    The Cook Inlet beluga whale population is estimated to have 
declined from 1,300 animals in the 1970s (Calkins, 1989) to about 340 
animals in 2014 (Shelden et al., 2015). The current population estimate 
is 328 animals (Shelden et al., 2017). The precipitous decline 
documented in the mid-1990s was attributed to unsustainable subsistence 
practices by Alaska Native hunters (harvest of more than 50 whales per 
year) (Mahoney and Shelden, 2000). In 2006, a moratorium of the harvest 
of Cook Inlet beluga whales was agreed upon through a cooperative 
agreement between the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council and NMFS.
    During late spring, summer, and fall, beluga whales concentrate 
near the Susitna River mouth, Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon 
Bay (Nemeth et al., 2007) where they feed on migrating eulachon and 
salmon (Moore et al., 2000). Critical Habitat Area 1 reflects this 
summer distribution. During winter, beluga whales concentrate in deeper 
waters in the mid-inlet to Kalgin Island, and in the mustow waters 
along the west shore of Cook Inlet to Kamishak Bay. Although belugas 
may be found throughout Cook Inlet at any time of year, they generally 
spend the ice-free months in Upper Cook Inlet and expand their 
distribution south and into more offshore waters of Upper Cook Inlet in 
winter. These seasonal movements appear to be related to changes in the 
physical environment from sea ice and currents and shifts in prey 
resources (NMFS, 2016). Belugas spend most of their time year-round in 
the coastal areas of Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, Susitna Delta, Chickaloon 
Bay, and Trading Bay (Goetz et al., 2012). During the open-water months 
in Upper Cook Inlet (north of the Forelands), beluga whales are 
typically concentrated near river mouths (Rugh et al., 2010).
    Satellite tags from 10 whales tagged from 2000 through 2002 
transmitted through the fall, and of those, three tags deployed on 
adult males transmitted through April and late May. None of the tagged 
beluga moved south of Chinitna Bay on the western side of Cook Inlet. A 
review of marine mammal surveys conducted in the Gulf of Alaska from 
1936 to 2000 discovered only 31 beluga sightings among 23,000 marine 
mammal sightings, indicating that very few belugas occur in the Gulf of 
Alaska outside of Cook Inlet (Laidre et al., 2000 cited in Allen and 
Angliss, 2014).
    Based on these studies, it is anticipated that beluga whales are 
most likely to occur near the Marine Terminal in moderate densities 
during the period when sea ice is typically present in Cook Inlet north 
of the Forelands (December through May; Goetz et al., 2012). Few 
belugas may occur near the Marine Terminal during the ice-free period 
(June through November). Belugas would not be expected to focus their 
foraging (dive) efforts near the proposed Marine Terminal location. If 
belugas do forage near the Marine Terminal, their foraging dives are 
more likely to be long and deep during the sea-ice season (December 
through May; Goetz et al., 2012).
    Beluga whales could be found in the vicinities of the Mainline 
crossing during summer-fall and the Marine Terminal construction area 
during winter. Previous marine mammal surveys conducted between the 
Beluga River and the West Forelands (Nemeth et al., 2007; Brueggeman et 
al., 2007a, b; Lomac-MacNair et al., 2013, 2014; Kendall et al., 2015) 
suggest that beluga whale numbers near the proposed

[[Page 31000]]

Mainline MOF on the west side of Cook Inlet and the pipeline landing 
peak in May and again in October, with few whales observed in the 
months in between.
    Beluga whales are expected to occur along the entire portion of the 
Mainline route within Upper Cook Inlet year-round; but, as discussed 
previously, beluga distribution is concentrated in mustow coastal 
waters near Knik Arm, Chickaloon Bay, and Trading Bay during the ice-
free season (June through November), and in deeper waters of the 
Susitna Delta, and offshore between East and West Forelands, and around 
Fire Island during the sea-ice season (December through May) (Goetz et 
al., 2012). Belugas may remain near the Mainline route during the 
winter (December through May).
    Belugas forage in the Trading Bay area from June to through 
November (Goetz et al., 2012). Belugas may remain near the Mainline 
route during the winter (December through May) (Goetz et al., 2012). 
Belugas would be expected to focus their foraging (dive) efforts near 
the Trading Bay area during June to November, south of where the 
proposed Mainline would enter Cook Inlet.
Harbor Porpoise
    The Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise stock is distributed from Cape 
Suckling to Unimak Pass (Allen and Angliss, 2015). They are found 
primarily in coastal waters less than 328 feet deep (Hobbs and Waite, 
2010) where they feed on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), other 
schooling fishes, and cephalopods.
    Although harbor porpoises have been frequently observed during 
aerial surveys in Cook Inlet, most sightings are of single animals, and 
the sightings have been concentrated nearshore between Iliamna and 
Tuxedni bays on the lower west side of Lower Cook Inlet (Rugh et al., 
2005; Shelden et al., 2013). No harbor porpoises were recorded near 
Nikiski during NMFS aerial surveys conducted between 1993 and 2012 
(Shelden et al., 2013). Dahlheim et al. (2000) estimated the 1991 Cook 
Inlet-wide population at 136 animals. However, they are one of the 
three marine mammals (besides belugas and harbor seals) regularly seen 
in Upper Cook Inlet (Nemeth et al., 2007), especially during spring 
eulachon and summer salmon runs. Brueggeman et al. (2007a, b) also 
reported small numbers of harbor porpoise between Granite Point and the 
Beluga River. Recent industry monitoring programs in Lower and Middle 
Cook Inlet reported harbor porpoise sightings in all summer months 
(Lomac-MacNair et al., 2013, 2014; Kendall et al., 2015). Because 
harbor porpoise have been observed throughout Cook Inlet during the 
summer months, they represent a species that could be encountered 
during all phases and locations of construction.
Dall's Porpoise
    Dall's porpoise are widely distributed across the entire North 
Pacific Ocean. They are found over the continental shelf adjacent to 
the slope and over deep (2,500+ m) oceanic waters (Hall, 1979). They 
have been sighted throughout the North Pacific as far north as 65[deg] 
N (Buckland et al., 1993) and as far south as 28[deg] N in the eastern 
North Pacific (Leatherwood and Fielding, 1974). The only apparent 
distribution gaps in Alaska waters are upper Cook Inlet and the eastern 
flats of the Bering Sea. Throughout most of the eastern North Pacific 
they are present during all months of the year, although there may be 
seasonal onshore-offshore movements along the west coast of the 
continental United States (Loeb, 1972; Leatherwood and Fielding, 1974) 
and winter movements of populations out of areas with ice such as 
Prince William Sound (Hall, 1979).
    As mentioned above, Dall's porpoise's use of Cook Inlet is rare. 
They have been sighted during NMFS aerial surveys in Cook Inlet 
conducted from 2000-2016 (Shelden et al., 2017), although all sightings 
were in south Cook Inlet over 100 miles south of the Alaska LNG project 
area.
California Sea Lion
    The breeding areas of the California sea lion are on islands 
located in southern California, western Baja California, and the Gulf 
of California. Mitochondrial DNA analysis identified five genetically 
distinct geographic populations: (1) Pacific Temperate, (2) Pacific 
Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of California, (4) Central Gulf of 
California and (5) Northern Gulf of California (Schramm et al., 2009). 
In that study, the Pacific Temperate population included rookeries 
within U.S. waters and the Coronados Islands just south of U.S./Mexico 
border. Animals from the Pacific Temperate population range into 
Canadian waters, and movement of animals between U.S. waters and Baja 
California waters occurs. Males from western Baja California rookeries 
may spend most of the year in the United States.
    California sea lions are very rare in Cook Inlet and typically are 
not observed farther north than southeast Alaska. However, NMFS' 
anecdotal sighting database contains four California sea lion sightings 
in Seward and Kachemak Bay. In addition, an industry survey report 
contains a sighting of two California sea lions in lower Cook Inlet; 
however, it is unclear if these animals were indeed California sea 
lions or mis-identified Steller sea lions (SAE, 2012). Regardless, in 
an abundance of caution, we have included take for California sea lions 
in the final IHA.
Steller Sea Lion
    Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern 
Japan to California (Loughlin et al., 1984), with centers of abundance 
and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Individual 
sea lions disperse widely outside of the breeding season (late May-
early July), probably to access seasonally important prey resources. 
This results in marked seasonal patterns of abundance in some parts of 
the range and potential for intermixing of eastern and western stock 
sea lions in foraging areas (Sease and York, 2003). Despite the wide-
ranging movements of juveniles and adult males in particular, exchange 
between rookeries by breeding adult females and males (other than 
between adjoining rookeries) is low, although males have a higher 
tendency to disperse than females (NMFS, 1995; Trujillo et al., 2004; 
Hoffman et al., 2006; Jemison et al., 2013). A northward shift in the 
overall breeding distribution has occurred, with a contraction of the 
range in southern California and new rookeries established in Southeast 
Alaska (Pitcher et al., 2007).
    Steller sea lion in the vicinity of the AGDC project area is the 
Western U.S. stock, and its use of Cook Inlet is rare, but they have 
been sighted during NMFS aerial surveys in Cook Inlet conducted from 
2000-2016 (Shelden et al., 2017).
Harbor Seal
    Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters along the West 
Coast, including southeast Alaska west through the Gulf of Alaska and 
Aleutian Islands, in the Bering Sea and Pribilof Islands (Allen and 
Angliss, 2015). At more than 150,000 animals state-wide, harbor seals 
are one of the more common marine mammal species in Alaskan waters 
(Allen and Angliss, 2015). Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, 
beaches, and drifting glacial ice (Allen and Angliss, 2015).
    Large numbers of harbor seals concentrate at the river mouths and 
embayments of Lower Cook Inlet, including the Fox River mouth in 
Kachemak Bay (Rugh et al., 2005). Montgomery et al. (2007) recorded 
over

[[Page 31001]]

200 haulout sites in Lower Cook Inlet alone. However, only a few 
hundred seals seasonally occur in Upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al., 2005; 
Shelden et al., 2013), mostly at the mouth of the Susitna River where 
their numbers vary in concert with the spring eulachon and summer 
salmon runs (Nemeth et al., 2007; Boveng et al., 2012). In 2012, up to 
83 harbor seals were observed hauled out at the mouths of the Theodore 
and Lewis rivers during April to May monitoring activity associated 
with a Cook Inlet seismic program (Brueggeman, 2007a). Montgomery et 
al. (2007) also found seals elsewhere in Cook Inlet to move in response 
to local steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and salmon runs. Recent 
industry monitoring programs in Lower and Middle Cook Inlet reported 
harbor seal sightings in all summer months, both in-water and on 
haulouts (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2013, 2014; Kendall et al., 2015). 
During summer, small numbers of harbor seals are expected to occur near 
the Marine Terminal construction area near Nikiski, and along the 
proposed Mainline pipeline crossing route.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided 
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB 
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception 
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was 
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated 
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges 
correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range 
not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within 
that group):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and 
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members 
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data 
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz;
     Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz; 
and
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. 
Ten marine mammal species (7 cetacean and 3 pinniped (2 otariid and 1 
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the 
proposed construction activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the 
cetacean species that may be present, three species are classified as 
low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., gray, humpback, and fin whales), two are 
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (killer and beluga whales), and 
two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor and Dall's 
porpoise).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section 
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the 
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment 
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on 
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
    Potential impacts to marine mammals from the Alaska LNG project are 
from noise generated during in-water pile driving and anchor handling 
activities.

Acoustic Effects

    Acoustic effects to marine mammals from the proposed Alaska LNG 
facilities construction mainly include behavioral disturbances and 
temporary masking of animals in the area. A few individual animals 
could experience mild levels of temporary and/or permanent hearing 
threshold shift.
    The AGDC's LNG facilities construction project using in-water pile 
driving and anchor handling during trenching and pipe laying could 
adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to 
elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area.
    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--Exposure to high 
intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory 
effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift (TS)--an increase in 
the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran et al., 2005). 
Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the 
amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy 
distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold 
shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise 
exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure is the initial TS. If 
the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the 
pre-exposure value), it is a temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Southall 
et al., 2007). When animals exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., 
sounds must be louder for an animal to detect them) following exposure 
to an intense sound or sound for long duration, it is referred to as a 
noise-induced TS. An animal can experience TTS or permanent threshold 
shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is 
complete recovery), can occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an 
animal might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between 
the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for 
example, an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced

[[Page 31002]]

initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some 
recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a specific frequency range 
and amount as mentioned above for TTS.
    For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive 
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless 
porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to 
measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California 
sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).
    Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing 
it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 
dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa), which corresponds to a 
sound exposure level (SEL) of 164.5 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\ s after 
integrating exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, 
one cannot directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) 
SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a 
conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from 
seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference 
between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms 
SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, 
and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would 
be higher. Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS 
of harbor porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically 
tested (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and 
Jennings, 2012).
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious 
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a 
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively 
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs 
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many 
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer 
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical 
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious 
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects 
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered 
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    Masking--In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not 
high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for 
marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions 
(Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as 
from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals 
such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental 
sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain 
circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment 
are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
    Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. 
Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly 
concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high 
frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, 
lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of 
communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such 
as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when 
they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space 
of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels 
(e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).
    Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial 
scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or 
even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects 
both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term 
chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent 
science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased 
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the 
world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases 
are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For AGDC's LNG facilities 
construction project, noises from pile driving contribute to the 
elevated ambient noise levels in the project area, thus increasing 
potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in 
the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing shipping, 
construction and other activities in Cook Inlet.
    Behavioral Disturbance--Finally, marine mammals' exposure to 
certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 
1995), such as changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of 
blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/
increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral 
activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response 
or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); 
avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight 
responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or 
rookeries).
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et 
al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) to predict the onset of behavioral disturbance from impulse 
noises (such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for 
continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the AGDC's LNG 
facilities construction project, both 160- and 120-dB levels are 
considered for effects analysis because AGDC plans to conduct both 
impact and vibratory pile driving.
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could be biologically significant if the change affects 
growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, 
duration, and context of the effects.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    Project activities that could potentially impact marine mammal 
habitats by causing acoustical injury to prey resources and disturbing 
benthic habitat include dredging/trenching, disposal of dredged 
material, and facility installation, as well as impacting marine mammal 
prey from noise generated by in-water pile driving.
    Approximately 42 hectares (103 acres) would be disturbed directly 
by dredging of the Marine Terminal MOF and trenching for the Mainline 
crossing, and another 486 hectares (1,200 acres) would be disturbed by 
the disposal of dredged material. Approximately 26

[[Page 31003]]

hectares (64 acres) of seafloor would be disturbed by installation of 
the Marine Terminal MOF, Mainline MOF, and Mainline Crossing. 
Additional area would be indirectly affected by the re-deposition of 
sediments suspended in the water column by the dredging/trenching and 
dredge disposal. However, such disturbances are expected to be 
temporary and mild. Recovery and re-colonization of the benthic habitat 
are expected to occur as soon as any anthropogenic stressors are 
removed.
    With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to 
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson 
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the 
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially 
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the 
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
    The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior 
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to 
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the 
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold 
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition 
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of 
sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous 
signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al., 
1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal 
intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the 
same level.
    During the Alaska LNG facilities construction, only a small 
fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given 
time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term, and fish would 
return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity 
ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, 
impact on marine mammals' prey availability in the area where 
construction work is planned.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this LOA, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as noise 
generated from in-water pile driving (vibratory and impact) and anchor 
handling has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral 
patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential 
for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for low- 
and high-frequency species and phocids because predicted auditory 
injury zones are larger than for mid-frequency species and otariids. 
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species and 
otariids. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected 
to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to 
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is 
estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally disturbed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take 
estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to experience 
behavioral disturbance (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 Level B harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to experience behavioral disturbance in a manner we consider 
Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    Because AGDC's Alaska LNG facilities project involves the 
generation of non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and anchor 
handling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, both 120 and 160 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are used to evaluate Level B harassment 
as explained above.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five 
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a 
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources 
(impulsive or non-impulsive). AGDC's Alaska LNG facilities project 
involves the generation of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-
impulsive (vibratory pile driving and anchor handling) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in the Table 4 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.

[[Page 31004]]



                     Table 4--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      PTS onset thresholds                     Behavioral thresholds
        Hearing group         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Impulsive      Non-impulsive          Impulsive             Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.  Lpk,flat: 219     LE,LF,24h: 199   Lrms,flat: 160 dB.....  Lrms,flat: 120 dB.
                                dB; LE,LF,24h:    dB.
                                183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.  Lpk,flat: 230     LE,MF,24h: 198
                                dB; LE,MF,24h:    dB.
                                185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans  Lpk,flat: 202     LE,HF,24h: 173
                                dB; LE,HF,24h:    dB.
                                155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW);         Lpk,flat: 218     LE,PW,24h: 201
 (Underwater).                  dB; LE,PW,24h:    dB.
                                185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW);        Lpk,flat: 232     LE,OW,24h: 219
 (Underwater).                  dB; LE,OW,24h:    dB.
                                203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
  a reference value of 1[mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
  Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
  frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
  being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
  designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
  that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
  exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
  is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss 
coefficient.
Source Levels
    The project includes impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving 
and anchor handling associated with trenching and cable laying 
activities. Source levels of pile driving activities are based on 
reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of 
piles available in the literature (Caltrans, 2015). Based on this 
review, the following source levels are assumed for the underwater 
noise produced by construction activities:
     Source levels of impact driving of 18- and 24-in steel 
piles are based on those of 24-inch steel pile impact driving reported 
by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in a pile driving 
source level compendium document (Caltrans, 2015);
     Source levels of impact driving of 48- and 60-in steel 
piles is based on that of 48-in steel pile impact driving reported by 
Austin et al. (2016) on the Anchorage Port Modernization Project Test 
Pile Program;
     Source level of impact pile driving of steel sheet pile is 
based on that of 24-in steel AZ sheet pile impact driving reported in 
the Caltrans compendium (Caltrans, 2015);
     Source levels of vibratory pile driving of 18- and 24-in 
steel piles are based on that of 36-inch steel pile vibratory driving 
reported in the Caltrans compendium (Caltrans, 2015);
     Source levels of vibratory pile driving of 48- and 60-in 
steel piles are based on that of 72-inch steel pile vibratory driving 
reported in the Caltrans compendium (Caltrans, 2015);
     Source level of vibratory pile driving of steel sheet pile 
is based on that of 24-in steel AZ sheet pile vibratory driving 
reported in the Caltrans compendium (Caltrans, 2015); and
     Underwater sound levels associated with offshore pipelay 
and trenching operations when engaging thrusters and anchor handling 
were based on measurements by Blackwell and Greene (2003) of a tug 
pushing a full barge near the Port of Alaska when engaging thrusters 
during docking. The levels are calculated from measured 149 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa rms at 100 meters/328 feet applying 15*log(r), which yield a 
source level of 179 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms at 1 meter.
    A summary of source levels from different pile driving activities 
is provided in Table 5.

                                                 Table 5--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Source Levels
                                                                  [At 10 m from source]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         SPLpk (dB re 1    SPLrms (dB re 1      SEL (dB re 1
             Method                  Pile type/size         [mu]Pa)            [mu]Pa)          [mu]Pa\2\-s)                    Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact driving..................  18-in steel pipe                   207                194                178  Caltrans 2015.
                                   pile.
Impact driving..................  24-in steel pipe                   207                194                178  Caltrans 2015.
                                   pile.
Impact driving..................  48-in steel pipe                   210                200                185  Austin et al. 2016.
                                   pile.
Impact driving..................  60-in steel pipe                   210                200                185  Austin et al. 2016.
                                   pile.
Impact driving..................  Sheet pile.........                205                190                180  Caltrans 2015.
Vibratory driving...............  18-in steel pipe                   180                170                170  Caltrans 2015.
                                   pile.
Vibratory driving...............  24-in steel pipe                   180                170                170  Caltrans 2015.
                                   pile.
Vibratory driving...............  48-in steel pipe                   183                170                170  Caltrans 2015.
                                   pile.
Vibratory driving...............  60-in steel pipe                   183                170                170  Caltrans 2015.
                                   pile.
Vibratory driving...............  Sheet pile.........                175                160                160  Caltrans 2015.
Anchor handling and thruster....  ...................                 NA                179                179  Blackwell & Greene 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These source levels are used to compute the Level A harassment 
zones and to estimate the Level B harassment zones.

Estimating Injury Zones

    When the NMFS' Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of

[[Page 31005]]

the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically 
challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new 
thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine 
mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going 
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of 
overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the 
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways 
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address 
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as in-water 
pile driving activities during the Alaska LNG project, NMFS User 
Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal 
remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would 
not incur PTS.
    For Level A harassment zones, since the peak source levels for both 
pile driving methods are below the injury thresholds, cumulative SEL 
(LE) were used to do the calculations using the NMFS 
acoustic guidance (NMFS, 2018).
    For cumulative SEL, distances to marine mammal injury thresholds 
were estimated using NMFS' Optional User Spreadsheet based on the noise 
exposure guidance. For impact pile driving, the single strike SEL/pulse 
equivalent was used, and for vibratory pile driving, the rms SPL source 
level was used. Per the NMFS Spreadsheet, default Weighting Factor 
Adjustments (WFA) were used for calculating PTS from both vibratory and 
impact pile driving, using 2.5 kHz and 2.0 kHz, respectively. These 
WFAs are acknowledged by NMFS as conservative. A transmission loss 
coefficient of 15 is used with reported source levels measured at 10m.
    For dynamic positioning and anchor handling associated with 
mooring, trenching, and pipelaying, a transmission loss coefficient of 
17.8 was used because these activities occur in deeper waters.
    Isopleths to Level B behavioral zones are based on rms SPL 
(SPLrms) that are specific for non-impulse (vibratory pile 
driving) sources. Distances to marine mammal behavior thresholds were 
calculated using practical spreading.
    A summary of the measured and modeled harassment zones is provided 
in Table 6. In modeling transmission loss from the project area, the 
conventional assumption would be made that acoustic propagation from 
the source is impeded by natural and manmade features that extend into 
the water, resulting in acoustic shadows behind such features. For 
modeling ensonified areas, areas of half circles were calculated since 
the pile driving will occur next to shore, which blocks acoustic 
propagation in the shoreward direction.

                                                              Table 6--Calculated Areas of Zone of Influence and Maximum Distances
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Impact     Active                                        Level A distance (m) (Level A area (km\2\))                        Level B distance
        Year             Activity description        only:     piling    SL 10m SEL   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     (m) (area
                                                  Strikes/hr   hr/day     (SPLrms)            LF                MF                HF                PW                OW            (km\2\))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................  Vibratory drive 18'' pile..  ..........      4.8       170 (170)        77 (0.009)         7 (0.000)       114 (0.020)        47 (0.003)        3 (0.000)   21,544 (728.71)
                     Vibratory drive 60'' pile..  ..........      4.8       170 (170)        77 (0.009)         7 (0.000)       114 (0.020)        47 (0.003)        3 (0.000)   21,544 (728.71)
                     Vibratory sheet pile.......  ..........      4.8       160 (160)        17 (0.000)         1 (0.000)        25 (0.001)        10 (0.000)        1 (0.000)     4,642 (33.83)
2..................  Vibratory drive 18'' pile..  ..........      4.8       170 (170)        77 (0.009)         7 (0.000)       114 (0.020)        47 (0.003)        3 (0.000)   21,544 (728.71)
                     Impact drive 24'' pile.....       1,560        3       178 (194)     1,297 (2.641)        46 (0.003)      1,545 (3.75)       694 (0.756)       51 (0.004)     1,848 (5.362)
                     Impact drive 48'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
                     Impact drive 60'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
                     Vibratory sheet pile.......  ..........      4.8       160 (160)        17 (0.000)         1 (0.000)        25 (0.001)        10 (0.000)        1 (0.000)     4,642 (33.83)
3..................  Impact drive 48'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
                     Impact drive 60'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
                     Mooring & Pipe Trench......  ..........        6     179 dB @ 1m       0.2 (0.000)       0.0 (0.000)       0.1 (0.000)       0.1 (0.000)        0 (0.000)    2,037 (13.029)
4..................  Impact drive 48'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
                     Impact drive 60'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
                     Pipe laying................  ..........        6      179 dB @1m       0.2 (0.000)       0.0 (0.000)       0.1 (0.000)       0.1 (0.000)        0 (0.000)    2,037 (13.029)
5..................  Impact drive 48'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
                     Impact drive 60'' pile.....       1,560        3       185 (200)    3,798 (22.647)       135 (0.028)    4,524 (32.132)     2,033 (6.489)      148 (0.034)    4,642 (33,831)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF: Low-Frequency Cetaceans; MF: Mid-Frequency Cetaceans; HF: High-Frequency Cetaceans; PW: Phocid Pinnipeds, Underwater; OW: Otariid Pinnipeds, Underwater.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations.
    Density estimates were calculated for humpback, fin, gray, whales, 
and killer whales, harbor and Dall's porpoises, harbor seals, and 
Steller sea lions using aerial survey data collected by NMFS in Cook 
Inlet between 2000 and 2016. To estimate the average densities of 
marine mammals, the total number of animals for each species for each 
year observed over the 15-year survey period was divided by the total 
area surveyed each year.
    For beluga whale, area-based densities were used based on NMFS 
aerial survey (Shelden et al., 2017).
    No density estimate is available for California sea lions. 
Therefore, its take number is derived from past observations in the 
general vicinity of the proposed project area.
    Detailed description of the marine mammal density estimation is 
provided below.
Beluga Whale
    To estimate the average density, the maximum number of individual 
beluga whales was divided by the area covered and the average across 
all years. The survey area can be separated into Upper, Middle, and 
Lower Cook Inlet, resulting in different densities for beluga whales in 
each area. Using these data, the appropriate density for beluga whales 
for the Mainline crossing and Mainline MOF is 0.00049 whales per square 
kilometer (middle Cook Inlet) and 0.00003 whales per square kilometer 
for the Marine Terminal (Lower Cook Inlet).
    Goetz et al. (2012) modeled aerial survey data collected by NMFS 
between 1993 and 2008 and developed beluga whale summer densities for 
each 1-square-kilometer (0.4-square-mile) cell of Cook Inlet. Given the 
clumped and distinct distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet during 
the summer months, these results provide a more precise estimate of 
beluga whale density at a given location than multiplying all aerial 
observations by the total survey effort. To develop a density estimate 
associated with planned survey areas, the ensonified area associated 
with each activity was overlain on a map of the 1-square-kilometer 
(0.4-square-mile) density cells. The cells falling within

[[Page 31006]]

each ensonified area were quantified, and an average cell density was 
calculated. Figure 9 in the LOA application shows the Goetz et al. 
(2012) distribution with project components.
    A summary of beluga whale density estimates in different regions of 
Cook Inlet is provided in Table 23 of the LOA application.
Marine Mammals Other Than Beluga Whales and California Sea Lions.
    Table 7 summarizes the maximum number of marine mammals, other than 
beluga whales and California sea lions, observed each year during the 
NMFS Annual Aerial Surveys and the area covered. To estimate the 
average density, the maximum number of individuals per species was 
divided by the area covered and the average across all years was used 
for each species. The total number of animals observed accounts for the 
entire Cook Inlet, which is a higher density estimate than anticipated 
for the Lower Cook Inlet area. The raw densities were not corrected for 
animals missed during the aerial surveys as no accurate correction 
factors are currently available for these species; however, observer 
error may be limited as the NMFS surveyors often circled marine mammal 
groups to get an accurate count of group size.

                Table 7--Sighting and Densities of Marine Mammals Other Than Beluga Whale During NMFS Aerial Survey Between 2000 and 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species               2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012    2014    2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale..................      11      26      20      20      16      18      14       3       7       5       2       9       1      11       6
Fin whale.......................       0       2       0      16       3       2       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       4       1
Gray whale......................       2       2       0       0       0       2       0       0       0       1       0       0       0       0       0
Killer whale....................       0      15       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0      33       0       9       0       0
Harbor porpoise.................      29      26       0       0     101       2       0       4       6      42      10      31      11     128      17
Dall's porpoise.................      17       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
Harbor seal.....................   1,800     672   1,481     974     975     633     887     393   1,219     387     543   1,747   1,772   2,115   1,909
Steller sea lion................      10      35      54      77       1     104      83       0      75      39       1     100      65      43      71
Area surveyed (km\2\)...........   6,911   5,445   5,445   5,236   6,492   5,445   6,702   5,236   7,121   5,864   6,074   6,702   6,283   6,702   8,377
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Density estimates (x10- individuals/km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale..................    1.59    4.78    3.67    3.82    2.46    3.31    2.09    0.57    0.98    0.85    0.33    1.34    0.16    1.64    0.72
Fin whale.......................    0.00    0.37    0.00    3.06    0.46    0.37    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.58    0.12
Gray whale......................    0.29    0.37    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.37    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.17    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
Killer whale....................    0.00    2.76    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    5.43    0.00    1.43    0.00    0.00
Harbor porpoise.................    4.20    4.78    0.00    0.00    15.6    3.67    0.00    0.76    0.84    7.16    1.65    4.63    1.75    19.1    2.03
Dall's porpoise.................    2.46    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
Harbor seal.....................     260     123     272     186     150     116     132    75.1     171    66.0    89.4     261     282     316     228
Steller sea lion................    1.45    6.43    9.92    14.7    0.15    19.1    12,4    0.00    10.5    6.65    0.17    14.9    10.3    6.42    8.48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harbor Seal
    The average raw density for harbor seals was originally calculated 
in the same manner as humpback whales, harbor porpoises, and killer 
whales in method 1, but resulted in an unrealistically inflated density 
of 0.18190 seals per square kilometer. This inflated density is due to 
bias created by the large number of hauled out harbor seals at river 
mouths in the NMFS aerial survey database relative to offshore 
densities.
    An alternative harbor seal density estimate was developed (method 
2) by taking the highest number of hauled out seals recorded during the 
NMFS aerial survey (650 seals) and dividing it by the area of Upper 
Cook Inlet (3,833 square kilometers) resulting in a density of 0.1695 
seals per square kilometers. This represents the density for the month 
of June, when the aerial surveys were conducted, the period during 
which the harbor seal presence (and eulachon run) in Upper Cook Inlet 
is at its peak. NMFS has recognized that harbor seal density estimates 
derived from both methods above are inflated, especially given that 
only about 2.2 seals were observed per 24-hour period by Lomac-MacNair 
et al. (2013, 2014) during seismic surveys in previous years in Upper 
Cook Inlet. Density determined using method 2 (Table 8) was considered 
to be more accurate and thus was used to calculate the number of 
exposures for the analysis.
    A summary of marine mammal densities other than California sea lion 
is provided in Table 8.

         Table 8--Marine Mammal Density Estimates for Cook Inlet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Mean density
                         Species                             (animals/
                                                              km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale (Marine Terminal) \a\......................        0.000158
Beluga whale (Mainline Crossing) \a\....................          0.0107
Beluga whale (Mainline MOF) \a\.........................          0.0368
Killer whale \b\ \c\....................................         0.00064
Humpback whale \b\......................................         0.00189
Fin whale \b\...........................................         0.00033
Gray whale \b\..........................................         0.00000
Harbor porpoise \b\.....................................         0.00419
Dall's porpoise \b\.....................................         0.00016
Harbor seal (method 1) \c\..............................         0.18190
Harbor seal (method 2) \d\..............................         0.01695
Steller sea lion \b\....................................         0.00811
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Beluga densities were based on average density near facility from
  Goetz et al. (2012).
\b\ Densities calculated by dividing number of animals NMFS observed
  over 11 years of surveys divided by total area surveyed.
\c\ Killer whale density is for all killer whales regardless of stock.
\d\ Density calculated as highest number of hauled out seals recorded
  during the NMFS aerial survey divided by area of Upper Cook Inlet;
  this method was selected for use in exposure calculation.

California Sea Lion
    California sea lion is uncommon in the Alaska LNG project area. 
However, at least one California sea lion was observed during Apache's 
2012 seismic surveys (Apache, 2012). Thus, the potential encountering 
of this species is qualitatively assessed, below.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. For all marine 
mammals except California sea lions, estimated takes are calculated 
based on ensonified area for a specific pile driving activity 
multiplied by the marine mammal density in the action area, multiplied 
by the number of pile driving days. Distances to and areas of different 
harassment zones are listed in Table 6.

[[Page 31007]]

    For both Level A and Level B harassment, take calculations and 
assumptions are as follows:
     Number of takes per activity = density (average number of 
animals per km\2\) * area of ZOI (km\2\) * number of days, rounded to 
the nearest whole number;
     Marine mammal densities in the project area are provided 
in Table 8;
     The number of days for each activity component is provided 
in Table 1; and
     Takes by Level A and Level B harassment are calculated 
separately based on the respective ZOIs for each type of activity, 
providing a maximum estimate for each type of take which corresponds to 
the authorization requested under the MMPA.
    Take numbers based on the above calculation are further adjusted 
upwards for some species to count for group size, historical sighting 
(Table 7), and larger Level A harassment zones for such species (Table 
6).
    Take numbers for California sea lions are based on an observation 
of at least one animal during Apache's 2012 seismic surveys (Apache, 
2012), and adjusted to account for group size.
    The estimated numbers of instances of acoustic harassment (takes) 
by year, species and severity (Level A or Level B) are shown in Table 
9.

Table 9--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals That May Be Exposed to Received Noise Levels That Cause Level A and
                                               Level B Harassment
     [Numbers in parentheses are proposed take numbers that are adjusted to count for group size, historical
                                 sighting, and larger Level A harassment zones]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Percentage
                                     Estimated       Estimated       Estimated                      (instances
     Year            Species       Level A take    Level B take     total take       Abundance      take versus
                                                                                                    abundance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............  Humpback whale..               0              24              24          10,103            0.24
                Fin whale.......               0          4 (10)          4 (10)             916            1.09
                Gray whale......               0           1 (5)           1 (5)          20,990            0.02
                Killer whale....               0          8 (10)          8 (10)           2,347            0.43
                Beluga whale....               0          2 (20)          2 (20)             312            6.41
                Harbor porpoise.           0 (5)              54         54 (59)          31,046            0.19
                Dall's porpoise.           0 (5)          2 (10)          2 (15)          83,400            0.02
                Harbor seal.....          0 (20)             219       219 (239)          27,386            0.87
                Steller sea lion          0 (10)             105       105 (115)          53,303            0.22
                California sea              (10)            (50)            (60)         296,750            0.02
                 lion.
2.............  Humpback whale..           1 (2)              16         17 (18)          10,103            0.18
                Fin whale.......               0          3 (10)          3 (10)             916            1.09
                Gray whale......               0           1 (5)           1 (5)          20,990            0.02
                Killer whale....               0          5 (10)          5 (10)           2,347            0.43
                Beluga whale....               0          1 (20)          1 (20)             312            6.41
                Harbor porpoise.           3 (5)              36         39 (41)          31,046            0.13
                Dall's porpoise.           0 (5)          1 (10)          1 (15)          83,400            0.02
                Harbor seal.....          2 (20)             145       147 (165)          27,386            0.60
                Steller sea lion          0 (10)              70         70 (80)          53,303            0.15
                California sea              (10)            (50)            (60)         296,750            0.02
                 lion.
3.............  Humpback whale..           1 (2)          1 (10)          2 (12)          10,103            0.12
                Fin whale.......               0          0 (10)          0 (10)             916            1.09
                Gray whale......               0           0 (5)           0 (5)          20,990            0.02
                Killer whale....               0          1 (10)          1 (10)           2,347            0.43
                Beluga whale....               0          3 (20)          3 (20)             312            6.41
                Harbor porpoise.          3 (10)          1 (20)          4 (30)          31,046            0.10
                Dall's porpoise.           0 (5)          0 (10)          0 (15)          83,400            0.02
                Harbor seal.....          2 (20)         14 (50)         16 (70)          27,386            0.26
                Steller sea lion          0 (10)          8 (50)          8 (60)          53,303            0.11
                California sea               (5)            (10)            (15)         296,750            0.01
                 lion.
4.............  Humpback whale..               0          2 (10)          2 (10)          10,103            0.10
                Fin whale.......               0          0 (10)          0 (10)             916            1.09
                Gray whale......               0           0 (5)           0 (5)          20,990            0.02
                Killer whale....               0          1 (10)          1 (10)           2,347            0.43
                Beluga whale....               0          7 (20)          7 (20)             312            6.41
                Harbor porpoise.          2 (10)          3 (20)          5 (30)          31,046            0.10
                Dall's porpoise.           0 (5)          0 (10)          0 (15)          83,400            0.02
                Harbor seal.....          2 (20)         19 (50)         21 (70)          27,386            0.26
                Steller sea lion          0 (10)         10 (50)         10 (60)          53,303            0.11
                California sea               (5)            (10)            (15)         296,750            0.01
                 lion.
5.............  Humpback whale..               0          0 (10)          0 (10)          10,103            0.10
                Fin whale.......               0          0 (10)          0 (10)             916            1.09
                Gray whale......               0           0 (5)           0 (5)          20,990            0.02
                Killer whale....               0          0 (10)          0 (10)           2,347            0.43
                Beluga whale....               0          0 (20)          0 (20)             312            6.41
                Harbor porpoise.          1 (10)          0 (20)          1 (30)          31,046            0.10
                Dall's porpoise.           0 (5)          0 (10)          0 (15)          83,400            0.02
                Harbor seal.....          1 (10)          5 (20)          6 (30)          27,386            0.11
                Steller sea lion           0 (5)          0 (10)          0 (15)          53,303            0.03
                California sea               (5)            (10)            (15)         296,750            0.01
                 lion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31008]]

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an LOA under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (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 will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned); and
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Time Restriction

    For pile driving, work would occur only during daylight hours, when 
visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. Other 
construction activities, such as pipelay, anchor handling, and dredging 
could occur outside of daylight hours or during periods of low 
visibility.

Establishing and Monitoring Level A and Level B Harassment Zones, and 
Exclusion Zones

    Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, which 
include impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving, AGDC must 
establish Level A harassment zones where received underwater 
SELcum could cause PTS (see Table 6 above).
    AGDC must also establish Level B harassment zones where received 
underwater SPLs are higher than 160 dBrms re 1 [micro]Pa for 
impulsive noise sources (impact pile driving) and 120 dBrms 
re 1 [micro]Pa for non-impulsive noise sources (vibratory pile 
driving).
    NFMS proposes that AGDC establish exclusion zones for all mid-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and killer whales) based on the Level 
A harassment distances provided in Table 6, but not less than 10 m. The 
largest shutdown zone is 135 m from the source for impact pile driving 
of 48- and 60-in steel piles.
    NFMS proposes that AGDC establish exclusion zones for all low- and 
high-frequency cetaceans and phocids (i.e., humpback, fin, and gray 
whales, harbor and Dall's porpoises, and harbor seal) based on the 
Level A harassment distances (Table 6) that are shorter than 500 m. For 
Level A harassment distances beyond 500 m, a maximum 500 m exclusion 
zone should be established.
    NFMS proposes that AGDC establish exclusion zones for otariids 
(i.e., Steller and California sea lions) based on the Level A 
harassment distances provided in Table 6, but not smaller than 10 m. 
The largest shutdown zone is 150 m from the source, which corresponds 
to the Level A harassment distance of 148 m from impact pile driving of 
48- and 60-in steel piles.
    In all cases, a minimum of 10-m exclusion zone must be established 
if the actual Level A harassment distances are less than 10 m.
    A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 10.
    If marine mammals are found within the exclusion zone, pile driving 
of the segment would be delayed until they move out of the area. If a 
marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor 
would wait 30 minutes for large cetaceans (baleen whales) and 15 
minutes for small cetaceans (beluga and killer whales and porpoises) 
and pinnipeds. If no marine mammals of that species are seen by the 
observer in that time it can be assumed that the animal has moved 
beyond the exclusion zone.

                                                         Table 10--Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Exclusion distances (m)
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Pile driving activities                                                        High-
                                                            Low- frequency  Mid- frequency     frequency      Pinniped in     Otariid in
                                                               cetacean        cetacean        cetacean          water           water
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory drive 18'' pile.................................              80              10             115              50              10
Vibratory drive 60'' pile.................................              80              10             115              50              10
Vibratory sheet pile......................................              20              10              25              10              10
Impact drive 24'' pile....................................             500              50             500             500              55
Impact drive 48'' pile....................................             500             135             500             500             150
Impact drive 60'' pile....................................             500             135             500             500             150
Impact sheet pile.........................................             500              65             500             500              70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF: Low-Frequency Cetaceans; MF: Mid-Frequency Cetaceans; HF: High-Frequency Cetaceans; PW: Phocid Pinnipeds, Underwater; OW: Otariid Pinnipeds,
  Underwater.

If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine 
mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to 
commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile 
driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and 
continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until 
the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have 
elapsed for large cetaceans or 15 minutes have elapsed for small 
cetaceans and pinnipeds since the last sighting.

[[Page 31009]]

Shutdown Measures

    AGDC must implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is 
detected moving towards or entered exclusion zones listed in Table 10.
    Further, AGDC must implement shutdown measures if the number of 
authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the 
LOA (if issued) and such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity 
of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone 
during in-water construction activities.

Soft Start

    AGDC must implement soft start techniques for impact pile driving. 
AGDC must conduct an initial set of three strikes from the impact 
hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, 
then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start must be required for 
any impact driving, including at the beginning of the day, and at any 
time following a cessation of impact pile driving of thirty minutes or 
longer.
    Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without 
impact driving, the contractor must initiate impact driving with soft-
start procedures described above.
    Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the prescribed mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an LOA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) 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) state that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    AGDC must employ trained protected species observers (PSOs) to 
conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Alaska LNG facilities 
construction project. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to 
implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine 
mammals from the AGDC's construction activities. The PSOs will observe 
and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 
30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all construction 
work.
Protected Species Observer Qualifications
    NMFS-approved PSOs must meet the following requirements:
    1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required;
    2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer;
    3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree 
in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
    4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer; and
    5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
Marine Mammal Monitoring Protocols
    AGDC must conduct briefings between construction supervisors and 
crews and the PSO team prior to the start of all pile driving 
activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures.
    A PSO must not work continuously for more than 4 hours without 
rotation.
    PSOs must be able to detect and provide distance and bearing 
information on marine mammal sightings using the following methods:
     During all observation periods, PSOs will use high-
magnification (25X), as well as standard handheld (7X) binoculars, and 
the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
     Monitoring distances will be measured with range finders. 
Distances to animals will be based on the best estimate of the PSO, 
relative to known distances to objects in the vicinity of the PSO;
     Bearings to animals will be determined using a compass;
    For marine mammal monitoring during in-water pile driving 
activities:
     PSOs will be located at appropriate, safe vantage point(s) 
to be able to observe the entire exclusion zones(s) in order to 
implement shutdown measures when needed;
     In-water pile driving must only take place when the 
exclusion and Level A harassment zones are visible and can be 
adequately monitored. If conditions (e.g., fog) prevent the visual 
detection of marine mammals, activities with the potential to result in 
Level A harassment must not be initiated. If such conditions arise 
after the activity has begun, impact pile driving would be halted but 
vibratory pile driving or extraction would be allowed to continue;
     Number and locations of PSOs posted for marine mammal 
monitoring during pile driving must be based on the harassment zone 
sizes listed in Table 6, as described below:
     For Level A harassment zones with radii less than 150 m, 2 
PSOs will be monitoring from land;
     For Level A harassment zones with radii larger than 150 m 
but smaller than 1,000 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land;
     For Level A harassment zones with radii larger than 1,000 
m, 6 PSOs will be monitoring from land; and

[[Page 31010]]

     Pre-Activity Monitoring:
    The exclusion zone will be monitored for 30 minutes prior to in-
water construction/demolition activities. If a marine mammal is present 
within the exclusion zones specified in Table 10, the activity will be 
delayed until the animal(s) leave the exclusion zone. Activity will 
resume only after the PSO has determined that, through sighting or by 
waiting 15 or 30 minutes, depending on the marine mammal species as 
described above, the animal(s) has moved outside the exclusion zone. If 
a marine mammal is observed approaching the exclusion zone, the PSO who 
sighted that animal will notify all other PSOs of its presence.
     During Activity Monitoring:
    If a marine mammal is observed entering the Level A or Level B 
harassment zones but remains outside the exclusion zone, the pile 
segment being worked on will be completed without cessation, unless the 
animal enters or approaches the exclusion zone, at which point all pile 
driving activities will be halted. If an animal is observed within the 
exclusion zone during pile driving, then pile driving will be stopped 
as soon as it is safe to do so. Pile driving can only resume once the 
animal has left the exclusion zone of its own volition or has not been 
re-sighted for a period of 15 or 30 minutes, depending on the marine 
mammal species as described above.
     Post-Activity Monitoring:
    Monitoring of all zones will continue for 30 minutes following the 
completion of the activity.
    For marine mammal monitoring during pipe laying activities:
     At least one PSO will be on the barge and on watch during 
pipe laying activities.
    PSOs must collect the following information during marine mammal 
monitoring:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for 
each day conducted (monitoring period);
     Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven 
and distances covered during pipe laying;
     Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile 
types, average driving times, and pipe laying distances, etc.;
     Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind 
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
     Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea 
state, tide state);
     For each marine mammal sighting:
    [cir] Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
    [cir] Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving and pipe laying activities, and notable changes in 
patterns;
    [cir] Location and distance from pile driving and pipe laying 
activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to 
the observation point; and
    [cir] Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the 
Level A and/or Level B harassment zones;
     Description of implementation of mitigation measures 
within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay); and
     Other human activity in the area within each monitoring 
period.

Reporting Measures

    AGDC is required to submit an annual report within 90 days after 
each activity year, starting from the date when the LOA is issued (for 
the first annual report) or from the date when the previous annual 
report ended. These reports would detail the monitoring protocol, 
summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number 
of marine mammals that may have been harassed during the period of the 
report. NMFS would provide comments within 30 days after receiving 
these reports, and AGDC should address the comments and submit 
revisions within 30 days after receiving NMFS comments. If no comment 
is received from NMFS within 30 days, the annual report is considered 
completed.
    AGDC is also required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 
days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the 
final LOA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. This report would 
synthesize all data recorded during marine mammal monitoring, and 
estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed 
through the entire project. NMFS would provide comments within 30 days 
after receiving this report, and AGDC should address the comments and 
submit revisions within 30 days after receiving NMFS comments. If no 
comment is received from NMFS within 30 days, the monitoring report is 
considered as final.
    In addition, NMFS would require AGDC to notify NMFS' Office of 
Protected Resources and NMFS' Alaska Stranding Coordinator within 24 
hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the construction 
site. AGDC must provide NMFS and the Stranding Network with the species 
or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) 
(including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of 
first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if 
available).
    In the event that AGDC finds an injured or dead marine mammal that 
is not in the construction area, AGDC would report the same information 
as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.

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' implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses 
applies to the species listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated 
effects of AGDC's Alaska LNG facilities construction project activities 
involving pile driving and pipe laying on marine mammals are expected 
to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the 
nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of 
any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis by species 
for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified 
and analyzed.

[[Page 31011]]

    Cook Inlet beluga whales, humpback whales, fin whales, and the 
western stock of Steller sea lions are listed as endangered under the 
ESA. These stocks are also considered depleted under the MMPA. The 
estimated annual rate of decline for Cook Inlet beluga whales was 0.6 
percent between 2002 and 2012. Zerbini et al. (2006) estimated rates of 
increase of fin whales in coastal waters south of the Alaska, and data 
from Calambokidis et al. (2008) suggest the population of humpback 
whales may also be increasing. Steller sea lion trends for the western 
stock are variable throughout the region with some decreasing and 
others remaining stable or even indicating slight increases. The other 
species that may be taken by harassment during AGDC's LNG facilities 
construction project are not listed as threatened or endangered under 
the ESA nor as depleted under the MMPA.
    Although a few individual marine mammals (up to 2 humpback whales, 
10 harbor porpoises, 5 Dall's porpoises, 20 harbor seals, and 10 
Steller and California sea lions) are estimated to experience Level A 
harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A 
harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree 
of injury that might occur would be expected to be mild and not likely 
to affect the reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is 
expected that, if hearing impairments occur, most likely the affected 
animal would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most 
cases is not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing 
impairment that might occur for these individual animals would be 
limited to the dominant frequency of the noise sources, i.e., in the 
low-frequency region below 2 kHz. Nevertheless, as for all marine 
mammal species, it is known that in general these marine mammals will 
avoid areas where sound levels could cause hearing impairment. 
Therefore, it is not likely that an animal would stay in an area with 
intense noise that could cause severe hearing damage.
    Under the majority of the circumstances, anticipated takes are 
expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment. Marine mammals 
present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B 
harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle 
reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during 
pile driving. Given the limited estimated number of incidents of Level 
A and Level B harassment and the limited, short-term nature of the 
responses by the individuals, the impacts of the estimated take cannot 
be reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, rise to 
the level that they would adversely affect any marine mammal species at 
the population level, through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.
    Mitigation measures such as dedicated marine mammal observers, pre-
construction exclusion zone clearance, soft-start, and shutdown 
measures when marine mammals are seen within the exclusion zones reduce 
short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. 
In all cases, the effects of these activities are expected to be short-
term, with no lasting biological consequence. Therefore, the exposure 
of marine mammals to sounds produced by AGDC's LNG facilities 
construction activities is not anticipated to have an effect on annual 
rates of recruitment or survival of the affected species or stocks.
    The area where the activities will take place is within the Cook 
Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. Satellite-tagging studies and 
aerial survey indicate that seasonal shifts exist in Cook Inlet beluga 
whale distribution, with the whales spending a great percentage of time 
in coastal areas during the summer and early fall (June through October 
or November), and dispersing to larger ranges that extend to the middle 
of the inlet in winter and spring (November or December through May) 
(Hansen and Hubbard, 1999; Rugh et al., 2004; Hobbs et al., 2005; Goetz 
et al., 2012). However, fine scale modeling based on NMFS long-term 
aerial survey data indicate that the AGDC's proposed LNG facilities 
construction does not overlap with beluga whale high density areas 
during the summer and fall (Goetz et al., 2012).
    There are no known important habitats, such as rookeries or 
haulouts, in the vicinity of the AGDC's LNG facilities construction 
project for other marine mammal species. The project also is not 
expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine 
mammals' habitat, including prey, as analyzed in detail in the 
``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
     Injury--a small individuals of humpback whales, harbor 
porpoises, Dall's porpoises, harbor seals, and Steller and California 
sea lions could experience mild level of PTS as a form of injury. 
However, as mentioned earlier in this section, the level of PTS is 
expected to be small;
     TTS--a small individuals of marine mammals could 
experience mild level of TTS before the threshold shifts become 
permanent. However, most of the TTS effects are expected to be brief in 
duration, and will not progress into PTS;
     Behavioral disturbance--most of the noise effects on 
marine mammals are expected to be in the form of behavioral 
disturbance. However, such effects are expected to be in short 
duration, within the day during the construction activities when the 
animal is nearby. As construction activities only occur for a maximum 
of 12 hours during daylight hours between April and October of the 
year, marine mammals in the project area will not be subject to chronic 
exposure of construction noise; and
     Important Areas--the area where the activities will take 
place is within the Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat. However, 
fine scale modeling based on NMFS long-term aerial survey data indicate 
that the AGDC's proposed LNG facilities construction does not overlap 
with beluga whale high density areas during the summer and fall.
    Species/Stock scale--based on our analysis, only a small percentage 
of marine mammals is expected to be harassed during the Alaska LNG 
facilities construction. The maximum percentage of population that 
could be affected for all marine mammal species is under 7 percent for 
the beluga whale. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely 
effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, 
and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed 
monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the 
total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a 
negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for specified 
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not 
define small numbers and so, in practice, 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.

[[Page 31012]]

    The estimated takes are below at most seven percent of the 
population for all marine mammals (Table 9).
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the 
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small 
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size 
of the affected species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    In order to issue an LOA, NMFS must find that the specified 
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by 
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) 
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing 
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly 
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers 
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The project is unlikely to affect beluga whale harvests because no 
beluga harvest will take place in 2019, nor is one likely to occur in 
the other years that would be covered by the 5-year regulations and 
associated LOAs. Additionally, the proposed action area is not an 
important native subsistence site for other subsistence species of 
marine mammals. Also, because of the relatively small proportion of 
marine mammals utilizing Cook Inlet, the number harvested is expected 
to be extremely low. Therefore, because the proposed program would 
result in only temporary disturbances, the program would not impact the 
availability of these other marine mammal species for subsistence uses.
    The timing and location of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor 
seals may coincide with AGDC's project, but because this subsistence 
hunt is conducted opportunistically and at such a low level that totals 
approximately 50 harbor seals and fewer than 10 Steller sea lions in a 
typical year (NMFS, 2013c), AGDC's program is not expected to have an 
impact on the subsistence use of harbor seals.
    NMFS anticipates that any effects from AGDC's proposed activities 
on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga 
whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be 
short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in 
behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the 
authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the 
availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to 
meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or 
avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3) 
placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the 
subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other 
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow 
subsistence needs to be met. 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 
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 
subsistence uses from AGDC's proposed activities.

Adaptive Management

    The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to 
AGDC's proposed LNG facilities construction activities would contain an 
adaptive management component.
    The reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule are 
designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to 
allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. The use of 
adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from 
different sources to determine (with input from AGDC regarding 
practicability) on an annual basis if mitigation or monitoring measures 
should be modified (including additions or deletions). Mitigation 
measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications 
would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing adverse effects to 
marine mammals and if the measures are practicable.
    The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data 
to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results 
from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) 
results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any 
information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a 
manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or 
subsequent LOAs.

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 LOAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the NMFS Alaska Region 
Protected Resources Division, whenever we propose to authorize take for 
endangered or threatened species.
    NMFS is proposing to authorize take of Cook Inlet beluga whale, 
Northeastern Pacific stock of fin whales, Western North Pacific DPS of 
humpback whales, and western DPS of Steller sea lions, which are listed 
under the ESA.
    The Permit and Conservation Division has requested initiation of 
Section 7 consultation with the Alaska Region for the promulgation of 
5-year regulations and the subsequent issuance of annual LOAs. NMFS 
will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination 
regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.

Classification

    Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order 
12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this 
proposed rule is not significant.
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The AGDC is the only entity that would be subject to the requirements 
in these proposed regulations. During construction, AGDC would employ 
or contract thousands of people and the Alaska LNG Project would 
generate a market value in the billions of dollars. Therefore, AGDC is 
not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small 
business, as defined by the RFA. Because of this certification, an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has 
been prepared.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor must a person be subject to a penalty for failure to 
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of 
the Paperwork

[[Page 31013]]

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. This proposed rule contains 
collection-of-information requirements subject to the provisions of the 
PRA. These requirements have been approved by OMB under control number 
0648-0151 and include applications for regulations, subsequent LOAs, 
and reports.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217

    Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, 
Transportation.

    Dated: June 10, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 217--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS 
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

0
2. Add subpart E to part 217 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Alaska Gasline 
Development Corporation Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Construction
Sec.
217.40 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
217.41 Effective dates.
217.42 Permissible methods of taking.
217.43 Prohibitions.
217.44 Mitigation requirements.
217.45 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
217.46 Letters of Authorization.
217.47 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
217.48--217.49 [Reserved]

Subpart E--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Alaska Gasline 
Development Corporation Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities 
Construction


Sec.  217.40  Specified activity and specified geographical region.

    (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the Alaska Gasline 
Development Corporation (AGDC) or successor entities and those persons 
it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf for the 
taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph 
(b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) The taking of marine mammals by AGDC may be authorized in a 
Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within AGDC's Alaska 
liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities' construction areas, which are 
located between the Beluga Landing shoreline crossing on the north and 
the Kenai River south of Nikiski on the south in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
    (c) The taking of marine mammals during this project is only 
authorized if it occurs incidental to construction activities 
associated with the proposed LNG facilities or the Mainline crossing of 
Cook Inlet.


Sec.  217.41  Effective dates.

    Regulations in this subpart are effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE] through [DATE 5 YEARS AND 30 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].


Sec.  217.42  Permissible methods of taking.

    Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter 
and 217.46, the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter ``AGDC'') may 
incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the 
area described in Sec.  217.40(b) by Level A harassment and Level B 
harassment associated with pile driving and pipe laying activities, 
provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and 
requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the applicable 
LOAs.


Sec.  217.43  Prohibitions.

    Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec.  217.42 and authorized 
by LOAs issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 217.46, no 
person in connection with the activities described in Sec.  217.40 may:
    (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and 
requirements of this subpart or a LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 
of this chapter and 217.46;
    (b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
    (c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner 
other than as specified;
    (d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines 
such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or 
stocks of such marine mammal; or
    (e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines 
such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of such species or stock of marine mammal for taking for 
subsistence uses.


Sec.  217.44  Mitigation requirements.

    When conducting the activities identified in Sec.  217.40(c), the 
mitigation measures contained in any LOAs issued under Sec. Sec.  
216.106 of this chapter and 217.46 must be implemented. These 
mitigation measures must include but are not limited to:
    (a) Time restriction. In-water pile driving must occur only during 
daylight hours. Times for other construction activities, such as 
pipelay, anchor handling, and dredging are not restricted.
    (b) Establishment of monitoring and exclusion zones. (1) For all 
relevant in-water construction activity, AGDC must designate Level A 
harassment zones with radial distances as identified in any LOA issued 
under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 217.46.
    (2) For all relevant in-water construction activity, AGDC must 
designate Level B harassment zones with radial distances as identified 
in any LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 217.46.
    (3) For all in-water pile driving work, AGDC must implement a 
shutdown zone for each specific activity as identified in any LOA 
issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 217.46. If a marine 
mammal comes within or enters the shutdown zone, AGDC must cease all 
operations.
    (i) For mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids during in-water pile 
driving activity, the exclusion zones must be based on the Level A 
harassment distances, but must not be less than 10 m from the pile.
    (ii) For low- and high-frequency cetaceans and phocids during in-
water pile driving activity, if the species' Level A harassment 
distance is less than 500 m, the exclusion zone must match that 
distance.
    (iii) For low- and high-frequency cetaceans and phocids during in-
water pile driving activity, if the species' Level A harassment 
distance is greater than 500 m, the exclusion zone must be 500 m from 
the pile.
    (c) Monitor of exclusion zones. Pile driving must only take place 
when the exclusion zones are visible and can be adequately monitored. 
If conditions (e.g., fog) prevent the visual detection of marine 
mammals within the exclusion zones, AGDC must not initiate activities. 
If such conditions arise after the activity has begun, AGDC must halt 
impact pile driving, but vibratory pile driving and extraction could 
continue.
    (d) Shutdown measures. (1) AGDC must deploy protected species 
observers (PSOs) to monitor marine mammals during in-water pile driving 
and pipe laying activities.
    (2) Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation 
of pile driving or pipe laying activities through

[[Page 31014]]

30 minutes post-completion of pile driving or pipe laying activities.
    (i) For pile driving activity, pre-activity monitoring must be 
conducted for 30 minutes to confirm that the shutdown zone is clear of 
marine mammals, and pile driving may commence only if observers have 
declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals for that full 
duration of time. Monitoring must occur throughout the time required to 
drive a pile. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be 
made during a period of good visibility (i.e., the entire shutdown zone 
and surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) If a marine mammal authorized to be taken by Level B harassment 
enters or approaches the shutdown zone, if a marine mammal not 
specified in the LOAs enters the Level B harassment zone, or if the 
take of a marine mammal species or stock has reached the take limits 
specified in any LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 
Sec.  217.46 and enters the Level B harassment zone, AGDC must halt all 
construction activities at that location. If construction is halted or 
delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not 
commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and 
been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown or Level B harassment zone, 
whichever applicable, or 30 minutes have passed without re-detection of 
the animal if it is a larger cetacean (humpback, fin, or gray whales), 
or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal if it is a 
small cetacean (beluga and killer whales and porpoises) or pinniped.
    (4) AGDC must implement shutdown measures if the number of 
authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the 
applicable LOA and if such marine mammals are sighted within the 
vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment 
zone during in-water construction or demolition activities.
    (e) Soft start. (1) AGDC must implement soft start techniques for 
impact pile driving. AGDC must conduct an initial set of three strikes 
from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute 
waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets.
    (2) Soft start must be required for any impact driving, including 
at the beginning of the day, and at any time following a cessation of 
impact pile driving of 30 minutes or longer.


Sec.  217.45  Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (a) Marine mammal monitoring. (1) AGDC must employ trained 
protected species observers (PSO) to conduct marine mammal monitoring 
for its LNG facilities construction projects. The PSOs must observe and 
collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 
minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all construction work. 
PSOs must have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods, and 
must be placed at appropriate and safe vantage point(s) practicable to 
monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures, 
when applicable, through communication with the equipment operator.
    (2) Protected species observer qualifications. AGDC must adhere to 
the following observer qualifications:
    (i) Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) are 
required;
    (ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer;
    (iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate 
degree in biological science or related field) or training for 
experience;
    (iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one 
observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring 
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an 
observer; and
    (v) AGDC must submit observer CVs for NMFS approval.
    (3) Marine mammal monitoring protocols.
    (i) AGDC must conduct briefings between construction supervisors, 
crews and the PSO team prior to the start of all construction 
activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocols, and operational procedures.
    (ii) A PSO must not work continuously for more than 4 hours without 
rotation.
    (iii) PSOs must be able to detect and provide distance and bearing 
information of marine mammal sightings using the following methods:
    (A) During all observation periods, PSOs must use high-
magnification (25X) binoculars, standard handheld (7X) binoculars, and 
the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.
    (B) Monitoring distances must be measured with range finders. 
Distances to animals must be based on the best estimate of the PSO, 
relative to known distances to objects in the vicinity of the PSO.
    (C) Bearings to animals must be determined using a compass.
    (iv) Monitoring for marine mammals during in-water pile driving:
    (A) PSOs must be located at appropriate and safe vantage point(s) 
to be able to observe the entire exclusion zones(s) in order to 
implement shutdown measures when needed.
    (B) In-water pile driving must only take place when the exclusion 
zones and Level A harassment zones are visible and can be adequately 
monitored. If conditions (e.g., fog) prevent the visual detection of 
marine mammals, AGDC must not initiate activities with the potential to 
result in Level A harassment. If such conditions arise after the 
activity has begun, AGDC must halt impact pile driving, but vibratory 
pile driving or extraction could continue.
    (C) Number and locations of PSOs posted for marine mammal 
monitoring during pile driving must be based on the harassment zone 
sizes as described below:
    (1) For Level A harassment zones with radii less than 150 m, 2 PSOs 
will be monitoring from land.
    (2) For Level A harassment zones with radii larger than 150 m but 
smaller than 1,000 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.
    (3) For Level A harassment zones with radii larger than 1,000 m, 6 
PSOs will be monitoring from land.
    (D) Pre-Activity Monitoring. The exclusion zone must be monitored 
for 30 minutes prior to in-water construction and demolition 
activities. If a marine mammal is present within the exclusion zone, 
AGDC must delay the activity until the animal(s) leave the exclusion 
zone. Activity must resume only after the PSOs have determined that, 
through sighting or by waiting 15 minutes for small cetaceans or 
pinnipeds, or 30 minutes for large cetaceans, the animal(s) has moved 
outside the exclusion zone. If a marine mammal is observed approaching 
the exclusion zone, the PSO who sighted that animal must notify all 
other PSOs of its presence.
    (E) During Activity Monitoring. If a marine mammal is observed 
entering the Level A or Level B harassment zones but is outside the 
exclusion zone, a pile segment being worked on may be completed without 
cessation, unless the animal enters or approaches the exclusion zone, 
at which point AGDC must halt all pile driving activities. If an animal 
is observed within the exclusion zone during pile driving, then AGDC 
must halt pile driving as soon as it is safe to do so. Pile driving may 
only resume if the animal has left the

[[Page 31015]]

exclusion zone of its own volition or has not been re-sighted for a 
period of 15 minutes for small cetaceans or pinnipeds, or 30 minutes 
for large cetaceans.
    (F) Post-Activity Monitoring. Monitoring of all zones must continue 
for 30 minutes following the completion of an activity.
    (v) Monitoring for marine mammal monitoring during pipe laying 
activities:
    (A) At least one PSO will be on the barge and on watch during pipe 
laying activities.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (4) Data collection. PSOs must collect the following information 
during marine mammal monitoring:
    (i) Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each 
day conducted (monitoring period);
    (ii) Construction activities occurring during each daily 
observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven 
and distances covered during pipe laying;
    (iii) Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types, 
average driving times, and pipe laying distances, etc.;
    (iv) Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind 
speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);
    (v) Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea state, 
tide state);
    (vi) For each marine mammal sighting:
    (A) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine 
mammals;
    (B) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, 
including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile 
driving and pipe laying activities;
    (C) Location and distance from pile driving and pipe laying 
activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to 
the observation point; and
    (D) Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level 
A and/or Level B harassment zones;
    (vii) Description of implementation of mitigation measures within 
each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay); and
    (viii) Other human activity in the area within each monitoring 
period.
    (b) Reporting measures. (1) Annual reports. (i) AGDC must submit an 
annual report within 90 days after each activity year, starting from 
the date when the LOA is issued (for the first annual report) or from 
the date when the previous annual report ended.
    (ii) Annual reports must detail the monitoring protocol, summarize 
the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine 
mammals that may have been harassed during the period of the report.
    (iii) NMFS must provide comments within 30 days after receiving 
annual reports, and AGDC must address the comments and submit revisions 
within 30 days after receiving NMFS comments. If no comment is received 
from the NMFS within 30 days, the annual report must be considered 
completed.
    (2) Final report. (i) AGDC must submit a comprehensive summary 
report to NMFS within 90 days after completion of the construction work 
or the expiration of the final LOA (if issued), whichever comes 
earlier.
    (ii) The final report must synthesize all data recorded during 
marine mammal monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals 
that may have been harassed through the entire project.
    (iii) NMFS would provide comments within 30 days after receiving 
this report, and AGDC must address the comments and submit revisions 
within 30 days after receiving NMFS comments. If no comment is received 
from the NMFS within 30 days, the final report must be considered as 
final.
    (3) Reporting of injured or dead marine mammals. (i) In the 
unanticipated event that the construction or demolition activities 
clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a prohibited manner, such 
as an injury, serious injury, or mortality, AGDC must immediately cease 
operations with the potential to impact marine mammals in the vicinity 
and immediately report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS Alaska Regional Office, and the Alaska Region Stranding 
Coordinators. The report must include the following information:
    (A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (B) Description of the incident;
    (C) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (D) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea 
state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);
    (E) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (F) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (G) The fate of the animal(s); and
    (H) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is 
available).
    (ii) Activities must not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS must work with AGDC to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. AGDC may not resume its 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
    (iii) In the event that AGDC 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 (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
AGDC must immediately report the incident to the NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS Alaska Regional Office, and the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the same 
information identified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section. 
Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 
incident. NMFS will work with AGDC to determine whether modifications 
in the activities are appropriate.
    (iv) In the event that AGDC 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 LOA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), AGDC must report the incident to 
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, NMFS Alaska Regional Office, 
and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 48 hours of the 
discovery. AGDC must provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. AGDC may continue its 
operations under such a case.


Sec.  217.46  Letters of Authorization.

    (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these 
regulations, AGDC must apply for and obtain (LOAs) in accordance with 
Sec.  216.106 of this chapter for conducting the activity identified in 
Sec.  217.40(c).
    (b) LOAs, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a 
period of time not to extend beyond the expiration date of these 
regulations.
    (c) If an LOA(s) expires prior to the expiration date of these 
regulations, AGDC may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA(s).
    (d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to 
mitigation, monitoring, reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to 
the adaptive management provision of Sec.  217.47(c)(1)) required by an 
LOA, AGDC must apply

[[Page 31016]]

for and obtain a modification of LOAs as described in Sec.  217.47.
    (e) Each LOA must set forth:
    (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
    (2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., 
mitigation) on the species, their habitat, and the availability of the 
species for subsistence uses; and
    (3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
    (f) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be based on a determination that 
the level of taking must be consistent with the findings made for the 
total taking allowable under these regulations.
    (g) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA(s) must be published in 
the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.


Sec.  217.47  Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

    (a) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 
217.46 for the activity identified in Sec.  217.40(c) must be renewed 
or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
    (1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as 
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes 
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section), and
    (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
measures required by the previous LOA(s) under these regulations were 
implemented.
    (b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that 
include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or 
reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive 
management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not 
change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than 
a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution 
by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the 
Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and 
solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
    (c) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 
217.46 for the activity identified in Sec.  217.40(c) may be modified 
by NMFS under the following circumstances:
    (1) Adaptive management. After consulting with AGDC regarding the 
practicability of the modifications, NMFS may modify (including by 
adding or removing measures) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or 
reporting measures if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more 
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring 
set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
    (i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision 
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:
    (A) Results from AGDC's monitoring from the previous year(s);
    (B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or 
studies; or
    (C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken 
in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or 
subsequent LOAs.
    (ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the 
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS 
must publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and 
solicit public comment.
    (2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that 
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of 
marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec.  216.106 
of this chapter and 217.46, an LOA may be modified without prior notice 
or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the 
Federal Register within 30 days of the action.


Sec. Sec.  217.48--217.49   [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2019-12568 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P