Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Old Sitka Dock North Dolphins Expansion Project in Sitka, Alaska, 3623-3644 [2020-01001]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3623-3644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XR044]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Old Sitka Dock North Dolphins 
Expansion Project in Sitka, Alaska

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Halibut Point Marine 
Services, LLC (HPMS) for authorization to take marine mammals 
incidental to the Old Sitka Dock North Dolphins Expansion Project in 
Sitka, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 
NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental 
harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals 
during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a 
possible one-year renewal that could be issued under certain 
circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request 
for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider 
public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of 
the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be 
summarized in the final notice of our decision.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than February 
21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments 
should be sent to [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, 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/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. 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 shall 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

[[Page 3624]]

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.
    The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above 
are included in the relevant sections below.

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.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with 
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for 
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or 
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality 
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any 
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical 
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the 
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
IHA request.

Summary of Request

    On July 30, 2019, NMFS received a request from HPMS for an IHA to 
take marine mammals incidental to dock expansion activities. The 
application was deemed adequate and complete on October 21, 2019. 
HPMS's request is for take of a small number of seven species of marine 
mammals by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither HPMS nor 
NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity 
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    HPMS is proposing to add two additional dolphin structures and 
modify two existing dolphin structures at their deep water dock 
facility in Sitka Sound. The cruise industry is a major sector of 
Sitka's economy, and the current HPMS facility currently does not meet 
the industry-required specifications for mooring newer, larger cruise 
vessels that are becoming increasingly more common. Construction at the 
dock facility will include vibratory pile installation and removal of 
temporary, template pile structures, vibratory and impact installation 
of permanent piles comprising the dolphins, and down-the-hole drilling 
to install bedrock anchors for the permanent piles. Vibratory pile 
removal and installation, impact pile installation, and drilling 
activity would introduce underwater sounds that may result in take, by 
Level A and Level B harassment, of marine mammals across approximately 
55.9km\2\ in Sitka sound.

Dates and Duration

    The proposed IHA would be effective from October 1, 2020 to 
September 30, 2021. Construction is expected to occur over 
approximately 30 days, including 19 in-water work days, between October 
2020 and February 2021. Pile driving, removal and drilling activity is 
expected to range from 126 minutes to 480 minutes each day and will 
occur during daylight hours. Construction between March 1 and June 15 
is prohibited as a condition of a U.S. Corps of Engineers permit. 
Additionally, cruise ship activity will prevent work from occurring 
during from May 1 to October 1.

Specific Geographic Region

    The HPMS deep water dock facility is located in Sitka Sound (Figure 
1) approximately five miles north of downtown Sitka, Alaska at the 
north east end of Sitka Sound. Baseline ambient sound levels in Sitka 
Sound are unknown. However, the dock facility is an active marine 
industrial area that is frequented by ferries, fishing vessels, and 
tenders; barges and tugboats; and other commercial and recreational 
vessels that use the small-boat harbor north of the facility. HPMS 
operates a marine haulout facility that utilizes a Marine Travelift to 
haul approximately 200 vessels per year for maintenance work, and the 
dock facility will see 150 cruise ship dockings in 2019. Additionally, 
Alaska Marine Lines freight terminal is located adjacent to the HPMS 
facility, and the freight terminal receives twice-weekly freight 
container barges.
    Marine mammals are present year round in the project vicinity. 
However, they are more common during spring and summer when herring and 
salmon are abundant in Sitka Sound.

[[Page 3625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22JA20.006

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    HPMS is proposing to install two new dolphins, and to modify two 
existing dolphins at their deep-water dock facility in Sitka Sound. 
Piles range in size from 30-inch to 48-inch in diameter. Sound source 
levels for in-water project activities are included in Table 1.

                                                   Table 1--Sound Source Levels for Project Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Source level (at 10m)
               Pile size                           Method          ------------------------------------------------           Literature source
                                                                        dB RMS          dB SEL          dB peak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch................................  Vibratory Pile Install/               168  ..............  ..............  Denes et al. 2016.
                                          Remove.
48-inch................................  Vibratory Pile Install...         \a\ 168  ..............  ..............  Denes et al. 2016.
48-inch (and 30-inch as necessary).....  Impact Pile Install......           197.9           186.7             212  Austin et al. 2016.
                                         Down-the-hole Drilling...           166.2  ..............  ..............  Denes et al. 2016.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This sound source level was adopted from Denes et al., 2016. Based on pile size, a sound source level was selected from Austin et al., 2016;
  however, that source level was lower than most appropriate Denes et al., 2016 source level selected for vibratory installation and removal of the 30-
  inch piles. Because of the deep water and substrate at the project site, NMFS determined that using 168dB root mean square (RMS) for vibratory
  installation of the 48-inch piles provided the most conservative sound source level estimate.

Installation of New Dolphins
    Construction of each new dolphin will begin with installation of 
the template piles. Four temporary, 30-inch piles will be installed at 
the sites of each new dolphin to guide the installation of the 48-inch, 
permanent steel piles. The applicant expects that installation of the 
temporary piles will occur over two days per dolphin, and anticipates 
being able to use a vibratory hammer to install the full length of the 
piles through the overburden into the bedrock. The applicant notes that 
there is a chance that they may need to use an impact hammer if driving 
conditions require, however, because impact driving of the 30-inch 
piles is not expected, the applicant conservatively plans to use the 
Level A and Level B harassment zones calculated for impact installation 
of 48-inch piles, discussed below.

[[Page 3626]]

    Each new dolphin will be comprised of four 48-inch piles. Using the 
template to guide their placement, the 48-inch, permanent piles will be 
driven into the overburden with the vibratory hammer operated at a 
reduced energy setting, with breaks in driving to splice piles 
together. The permanent piles will be seated into the bedrock with an 
impact hammer. No more than two permanent piles will be installed per 
day.
    After the permanent piles are fully installed, the contractor will 
drill a 33-inch diameter shaft approximately 4.6 meters (m) (15 feet) 
within the driven pile (down-the-hole drilling) and into the bedrock 
below the pile. The exact depth of the shaft will be determined by the 
geotechnical engineer. A rebar cage will be installed in each drilled 
shaft and filled with concrete. Once the permanent piles are in place 
with the concrete anchors, and pile caps have been installed, the 
temporary, template piles will be removed using a vibratory hammer. No 
more than two 30-inch template piles will be installed or removed per 
day.
Modifications to Existing Dolphins
    On the existing dolphins, construction will begin with removal of 
the existing catwalk and pile caps on the mooring dolphins. A 48-inch 
pile will be installed over one existing 36-inch diameter pile on each 
dolphin. Existing pile caps and catwalks will be reinstalled. No down-
the-hole drilling is proposed for modifications to the existing 
dolphins.
    A new catwalk will also be installed (between new mooring dolphins 
and floating dock) as will a floating dock between existing mooring 
dolphin No 1 and the existing concrete pontoon on the shore-side of the 
existing catwalk. The new components will be constructed off-site and 
installed once the piling construction is complete.
    While Steller sea lions haul out on buoys and navigational markers 
in Sitka Sound and along the rocky shores of Sugarloaf south of the 
project site, these haulouts are far beyond in-water and in-air noise 
disturbance threshold for hauled-out otariids. There are no pinniped 
haul-out sites near the construction site, and no harassment from 
airborne sound is expected to result from project activities. 
Therefore, above-water construction activities, including the floating 
dock installation, will not be considered further in this document.
    Materials and equipment would be transported to the project site by 
barge. While work is conducted in the water, anchored barges will be 
used to stage construction materials and equipment. The anchors will be 
kept below the surface and will not be a hazard to navigation.

                       Table 2--Project Components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number  of
                          Activity                               piles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch Steel...............................................       \a\ 8
48-inch Steel...............................................          10
Down-the-Hole Drilling......................................           8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These piles are installed as part of a template to guide
  installation of the permanent, 48-inch piles. Each pile will be
  installed and later removed.

    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

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's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
Sitka, AK 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's 
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.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS' U.S. 2018 SARs and draft 2019 SARs (e.g., Muto et al. 2019). All 
values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time 
of publication and are available in the 2018 and draft 2019 SARs (Muto 
et al., 2019 and Carretta et al., 2019).

                                              Table 3--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the 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\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -, -, N             26,960 (0.05, 25,849,         801        139
                                                                                                             2016).
Family Balaenidae:
    North Pacific Right Whale.......  Eubalaena japonica.....  Eastern North Pacific..  E, D, Y             31 (0.226, 26, 2015)..       0.05          0
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Central North Pacific..  -, -, Y             10,103 (0.300, 7,891,          83         26
                                                                                                             2006).
    Fin whale.......................  Balaenoptera physalus..  Northeast Pacific......  E, D, Y             see SAR (see SAR, see         5.1        0.4
                                                                                                             SAR, 2013).

[[Page 3627]]

 
    Minke whale.....................  Balaenoptera             Alaska.................  -, -, N             N/A (N/A, N/A, see            UND          0
                                       acutorostra.                                                          SAR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
    Sperm whale.....................  Physeter microcephalus.  North Pacific..........  E, D, Y             see SAR (see SAR, N/A,    see SAR        4.7
                                                                                                             2015).
Family Delphinidae:
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Eastern North Pacific    -, -, N             2,347 (N/A, 2,347,             24          1
                                                                Alaska Resident.                             2012).
                                                               Gulf of Alaska,          -, -, N             587 (N/A, 587, 2012)..       5.87          1
                                                                Aleutian Islands,
                                                                Bearing Sea Transient.
                                                               Eastern North Pacific    -, -, N             302 c (N/A, 302, 2018)        2.2        0.2
                                                                Northern Resident.
                                                               West Coast Transient...  -, -, N             243 (N/A, 243, 2009)..        2.4          0
    Pacific white-sided dolphin.....  Lagenorhynchus           North Pacific..........  -, -, N             26,880 (UNK, UNK,             UND          0
                                       obliquidens.                                                          1990).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Dall's porpoise.................  Phocoenoides dalli.....  Alaska.................  -, -, N             83,400 (0.097, NA,            UND         38
                                                                                                             1991).
    Harbor porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Southeast Alaska.......  -, -, Y             see SAR (see SAR, see         8.9         34
                                                                                                             SAR, 2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -, -, N             257,606 (N/A, 233,515,     14,011      >=321
                                                                                                             2014).
    Northern fur seal...............  Callorhinus ursinus....  Eastern Pacific........  -, D, Y             620,660 (0.2, 525,333,     11,295        399
                                                                                                             2016).
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Eastern................  -,-, N              43,201 a (see SAR,           2592        113
                                                                                                             43,201, 2017).
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Western................  E, D, Y             53,624 a (see SAR,            322        247
                                                                                                             53,624, 2018).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  Sitka/Chatham Straight.  -, -, N             13,289 (see SAR,              356         77
                                                                                                             11,883, 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case]
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). 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\ These values are the best estimate of pup and non-pup counts which have not been corrected to account for animals at sea during abundance surveys.
Note--Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 3. However, the temporal and/or spatial 
occurrence of western north Pacific gray whales, northern right whale, 
fin whale, sperm whale, pacific white-sided dolphin, Dall's porpoise, 
California sea lion, and Northern fur seal is such that take is not 
expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the 
explanation provided here.
    Marine mammal monitoring reports are available for three recent 
construction projects in the Sitka area (Gary Paxton Industrial Park 
Dock Modification Project, 82 FR 47717, October 13, 2017; Biorka Island 
Dock Replacement Project, 82 FR 50397, October 31, 2017; O'Connell 
Bridge Lightering Float Pile Replacement Project, 84 FR 27288, June 12, 
2019). These reports were referenced in determining marine mammals 
likely to be present within the Old Sitka Dock project area. NMFS 
acknowledges seasonal differences between the Old Sitka Dock project 
and available monitoring reports.
    North Pacific Right Whale, fin whale, sperm whale, Dall's porpoise, 
and northern fur seal have not been reported in monitoring reports 
available for the recent Sitka-area, and were not observed during the 
Straley et al. (2017) surveys. Straley et al. (2017) only observed 
seven Pacific white-sided dolphins during eight years of surveys, 
however, no observations were reported in monitoring reports available 
for the recent Sitka-area. California sea lions are rarely sighted in 
southern Alaska. NMFS' anecdotal sighting database includes four 
sightings in Seward and Kachemak Bay, and they were also documented 
during the Apache 2012 seismic survey in Cook Inlet. However, 
California sea lions have not been reported in monitoring reports 
available for the recent Sitka-area construction projects.
    In addition, the northern sea otter may be found in Sitka. However, 
northern sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and are not considered further in this document.

Gray Whale

    Gray whales occur exclusively in the North Pacific Ocean. The 
Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales inhabit California and 
Mexico in the winter months, and the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Bering Seas 
in northern Alaska in the

[[Page 3628]]

summer and fall. Gray whales have also been observed feeding in waters 
off Southeast Alaska during the summer (NMFS 2019).
    The migration pattern of gray whales appears to follow a route 
along the western coast of Southeast Alaska, traveling northward from 
British Columbia through Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance, passing the 
west coast of Baranof Island from late March to May and then return 
south in October and November (Jones et al. 1984, Ford et al. 2013). 
The project area is well inside Sitka Sound on the west coast of 
Baranof Island.
    During 8 years of observations in Sitka Sound, Straley et al. 
(2017) observed just one group of three gray whales. However, Sitka 
Sound is within a gray whale migratory corridor Biologically Important 
Area (BIA) (Ferguson et al., 2015). Construction is expected to occur 
during the beginning of the period of highest density in the BIA during 
the southbound migration (November to January). The Sound is also 
within the Southeast Alaska BIA, an important area for gray whale 
feeding. Construction is expected to overlap with end of period with 
the highest gray whale densities in the Southeast Alaska BIA (May 
through November).
    Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred 
along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. This 
event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME), though a 
cause has not yet been determined. More information is available at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events.

Humpback Whale

    Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangilae) are the most commonly 
observed baleen whale in Sitka Sound. They have been observed in 
Southeast Alaska in all months of the year (Baker et al. 1985, 1986), 
although they are most common in Sitka Sound's Eastern Channel in 
November, December, and January (Straley et al., 2017). In late fall 
and winter, herring sometimes overwinter in deep fjords in Silver Bay 
and Eastern Channel, and humpback whales aggregate in these areas to 
feed on them. In the summer when prey is dispersed throughout Sitka 
Sound, humpback whales also disperse throughout the Sound (Straley et 
al., 2017). Humpbacks in Sitka Sound are expected to be from the 
Central North Pacific stock.
    Humpback whales have been frequently observed during construction 
projects in Sitka Sound, including the Biorka Island Dock Replacement 
Project (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2018) and the Sitka GPIP 
Multipurpose Dock Project (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017). There 
is no recorded observation data from the immediate project area, 
however, HPMS staff work year-round at the project site and note that 
humpback whales are rarely observed during the months from October 
through mid-February. HPMS staff noted that humpback whale activity 
increases starting in late February and humpback whale observations are 
frequent from March to mid-April. (HPMS, pers. comm. 2019). This 
activity coincides with the migration of herring into Sitka sound for 
spawning.
    According to Wade et al. 2016, Humpback whales in Southeast Alaska 
are most likely to be from the Hawaii DPS (distinct population segment, 
93.9 percent probability), with a 6.1 percent probability of being from 
the threatened Mexico DPS. Critical habitat was recently proposed for 
the humpback whale in Southeast Alaska, including Sitka Sound (84 FR 
54354, October 9, 2019), but it has not yet been finalized. However, 
Sitka Sound is within seasonal humpback whale feeding BIAs from March 
through November (Ferguson et al., 2015). Construction is expected to 
occur during the tail end of the seasonally specific BIA.

Minke Whale

    Minke whales are found throughout the northern hemisphere in polar, 
temperate, and tropical waters (Jefferson et al., 2008). The 
International Whaling Commission has identified three minke whale 
stocks in the North Pacific: one near the Sea of Japan, a second in the 
rest of the western Pacific (west of 180[deg] W), and a third, less 
concentrated stock throughout the eastern Pacific. NMFS further splits 
this third stock between Alaska whales and resident whales of 
California, Oregon, and Washington (Muto et al., 2018). Minke whales 
are found in all Alaska waters, though there are no population 
estimates for minke whales in southeast Alaska.
    In Alaska, minke whales feed primarily on euphausiids and walleye 
pollock. Minke whales are generally found in shallow, coastal waters 
within 200 m (656 ft) of shore (Zerbini et al., 2006). Dedicated 
surveys for cetaceans in southeast Alaska found that minke whales were 
scattered throughout inland waters from Glacier Bay and Icy Strait to 
Clarence Strait, with small concentrations near the entrance of Glacier 
Bay. Surveys took place in spring, summer, and fall, and minke whales 
were present in low numbers in all seasons and years (Dahlheim et al., 
2009). Additionally, Minke whales were observed during the Biorka 
Island Dock Replacement Project at the mouth of Sitka Sound (Turnagain 
Marine Construction, 2018).

Killer Whale

    Killer whales (Orcinus orca) have been observed in all oceans, but 
the highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found 
at high latitudes. Killer whales occur along the entire coast of Alaska 
(Braham and Dahlheim, 1982), inland waterways of British Columbia and 
Washington (Bigg et al. 1990), and along the outer coasts of 
Washington, Oregon, and California (Green et al.1992; Barlow 1995,1997; 
Forney et al.1995). Eight stocks of killer whales are recognized within 
the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Muto et al., 2018). Of those, 
the Alaska Resident, Northern Resident, Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
Islands and Bering Sea Transient, and West Coast Transient may occur in 
the project area. Transient killer whales, primarily from the West 
Coast transient stock, occur most frequently in the project area.
    Transient killer whales hunt and feed primarily on marine mammals, 
including harbor seals, Dall's porpoises, harbor porpoises, and sea 
lions. Resident killer whale populations in the eastern north Pacific 
feed mainly on salmonids, showing a strong preference for Chinook 
salmon (NMFS 2016).
    The Alaska Resident stock occurs from southeast Alaska to the 
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. Photo-identification studies between 
2005 and 2009 identified 2,347 individuals in this stock, including 
approximately 121 in southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 2019). The Northern 
Resident stock occurs from Washington north through part of southeast 
Alaska and consists of 261 individuals. The Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 
islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock occurs from the northern 
British Columbia coast to the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The West 
Coast Transient stock occurs from California north through southeast 
Alaska (Muto et al., 2019). Dahlheim et al., (2009) noted a 5.2 percent 
annual decline in transient killer whales observed in southeast Alaska 
between 1991 and 2007.
    Both resident and transient killer whales were observed in 
southeast Alaska during all seasons during surveys between 1991 and 
2007, in a variety of habitats and in all major waterways, including 
Lynn Canal, Icy Strait, Stephens Passage, Frederick Sound, and upper 
Chatham Strait (Dahlheim et al., 2009). There does not

[[Page 3629]]

appear to be strong seasonal variation in abundance or distribution of 
killer whales, but Dahlheim et al., (2009) observed substantial 
variability among different years. HPMS staff have only observed killer 
whales on one occasion from the project site in the past five years 
(HPMS pers. comm. 2019).

Harbor Porpoise

    Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) are common in coastal waters. 
They frequently occur in coastal waters of southeast Alaska and are 
observed most frequently in waters less than 350 ft (107 m) deep 
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). There are three harbor porpoise stocks in 
Alaska. The Southeast Alaska stock occurs from Dixon Entrance to Cape 
Suckling, Alaska and is the only stock that occurs in the action area 
(Muto et al. 2019).
    Harbor porpoises commonly frequent nearshore waters, but are not 
common in the project area. Monthly tallies from observations from 
Sitka's Whale Park show harbor porpoises occurring infrequently in or 
near the action area in March, April, and October between 1994 to 2002 
(Straley et al., 2017). Protected Species Observers (PSO) did not 
observe harbor porpoises during monitoring for recent construction 
projects in the Sitka, AK area (Petro Marine Dock, Windward, 2017; GPIP 
dock, Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017; Biorka Island Dock 
Replacement, Turnagain Marine Construction, 2018; Sitka O'Connell 
Bridge Lightering Float Pile Replacement Project, CBS 2019). 
Additionally, Halibut Point Marine staff indicated that they have not 
seen a harbor porpoise near the project site during the past five years 
(HPMS, pers. com. 2019).

Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are common in the inside waters of 
southeastern Alaska, including in Sitka Sound. Harbor seals in 
southeast Alaska are typically non-migratory with local movements 
attributed to factors such as prey availability, weather, and 
reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981; 
Hastings et al. 2004). Harbor seals haul out of the water periodically 
to rest, give birth, and nurse their pups. According to the Alaska 
Fisheries Science Center's list of harbor seal haul-out locations, the 
closest listed haulout (id CE49 name CE49C) is located in Sitka Sound 
approximately 6.4 km (3.98 mi) southwest, of the project site (AFSC, 
2018).
    Harbor seals in the project area are from the Sitka/Chatham 
Straight stock (Muto et al., 2019). Harbor seal observations have been 
documented in monitoring reports for construction projects in the Sitka 
area. They were observed on 10 of 21 monitoring days for GPIP dock 
construction between October and November 2017 (Turnagain Marine 
Construction, 2017), two of eight days of monitoring for the Petro 
Marine dock in January 2017 (Windward 2017), one of three days at Sitka 
O'Connel Bridge Lightering Float Pile Replacement Project (CBS, 2019), 
and were the most commonly observed marine mammal species during 
monitoring for the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project (Turnagain 
Marine Construction, 2018). Additionally, Straley et al., (2017) 
observed harbor seals during most months of monitoring (September 
through May) from Whale Park between 1994 and 2002, except in December 
and May.
    Observations during the original construction of the Halibut Point 
Marine Services dock facility did not record any harbor seals within 
the 200-meter shutdown zone during pile driving operations. Observers 
did indicate observing individual seals outside the 200-meter zone two 
to three times per week. (McGraw, pers. com., 2019).

Steller Sea Lion

    Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) range extends from the North 
Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California with areas of abundance 
in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2019). In 
1997, based on demographic and genetic dissimilarities, NMFS identified 
two DPSs of Steller sea lions under the ESA: a western DPS (western 
stock) and an eastern DPS (eastern stock). The western DPS breeds on 
rookeries located west of 144[deg]W in Alaska and Russia, whereas the 
eastern DPS breeds on rookeries in southeast Alaska through California.
    Movement occurs between the western and eastern DPS of Steller sea 
lions, and increasing numbers of individuals from the western DPS have 
been seen in Southeast Alaska in recent years (NMFS 2013, Fritz et al. 
2013, 2016; DeMaster 2014). This DPS-exchange is especially evident in 
the outer Southeast coast of Alaska, including Sitka Sound. The 
distribution of marked animals (along with other demographic data) 
indicates that movements of Steller sea lions during the breeding 
season result in a small net annual movement of animals from southeast 
Alaska (eastern DPS) to the western DPS (approximately 80 sea lions 
total) but a much larger inter-regional movement between the western 
DPS and the eastern DPS (approximately 1,000 sea lions per year; Fritz 
et al. 2016). According to Hastings et al. (2019), 3.1 percent of 
Steller sea lions in the Sitka area are from the western DPS.
    Critical habitat has been defined in Southeast Alaska at major 
haulouts and major rookeries (50 CFR 226.202), but the project action 
area does not overlap with Steller sea lion critical habitat. The 
Biorka Island haulout is the closest designated critical habitat and is 
over 25 kilometers southwest of the project area.
    Steller sea lions are common in the project area. They were 
observed during every month of monitoring (September to May) between 
1994 and 2002 (Straley et al., 2017). Individual sea lions were seen on 
19 of 21 days during monitoring for GPIP dock construction between 
October and November 2017 (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017), and 
three of eight days of monitoring for the Petro Marine dock in January 
2017 (Windward 2017). Steller sea lions were also observed during the 
Sitka O'Connel Bridge Lightering Float Pile Replacement Project (CBS, 
2019) and the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project (Turnagain Marine 
Construction, 2018). During the original construction of the Halibut 
Point Marine Services dock facility, no Steller sea lions were recorded 
within the 200-meter shutdown zone during pile driving operations; 
however, observers indicated observing individual sea lions outside the 
200-meter zone four to five times per week. (McGraw, 2019).
    During the summer months, sea lions are seen in the project area 
daily. Two to three individual sea lions feed on fish carcasses dumped 
adjacent to the project site from fishing charter operations in a 
nearby private marina. However, during the proposed project timing of 
fall and winter, the charter fishing operations are not underway and 
the sea lions are not as active in the area. (McGraw, pers. com., 
2019).

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

[[Page 3630]]

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 decibel (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. 
Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are 
provided in Table 4.

                  Table 4--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                              [NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen  7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans          150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
 whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true   275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
 cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
 cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)    50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater)   60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 (sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
  composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
  species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
  hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
  composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    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 (2018) for a review of available information. 
Seven marine mammal species (five cetacean and two pinniped (one 
otariid and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-
occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of 
the cetacean species that may be present, three are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., gray whale, humpback whale, minke whale), 
one is classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., killer whale), and 
one is classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor 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.

Description of Sound Sources

    The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and 
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing 
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many 
sources both near and far. The sound level of an area is defined by the 
total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. 
These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, 
earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced 
by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate 
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al. 1995). The result is that, depending 
on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity 
may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a 
distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.
    In-water construction activities associated with the project would 
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile 
removal, and down-the-hole drilling. The sounds produced by these 
activities fall into one of two general sound types: Impulsive and non-
impulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 
impact pile driving) are typically transient, brief (less than 1 
second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid 
rise time and rapid decay (ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005; NMFS 
2018a). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g. aircraft, machinery operations such 
as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar 
systems) can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged 
(continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak 
sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 
1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018a). The distinction between these two sound 
types is important because they have differing potential to cause 
physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 
in Southall et al. 2007).
    Two types of pile hammers would be used on this project: Impact and 
vibratory. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston 
onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate.

[[Page 3631]]

Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times 
and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and 
Popper 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and 
allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. 
Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. 
Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are 
generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile 
driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al. 2009). Rise time is 
slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound 
energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and 
Edwards 2002; Carlson et al. 2005).
    The likely or possible impacts of HPMS's proposed activity on 
marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. 
Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical 
presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine 
mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic 
stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile 
installation and removal.

Acoustic Impacts

    The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic 
environment from pile driving and removal and down-the-hole drilling is 
the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from HPMS's 
specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or 
anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, 
ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al. 2007). In 
general, exposure to pile driving and removal and down-the-hole 
drilling noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts 
and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of 
foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to 
anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological 
responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a 
marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals 
to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator and 
prey detection. The effects of pile driving and removal and down-the-
hole drilling noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, 
including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-
impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mom 
with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the 
animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous 
history with exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall et al. 2007). Here 
we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed by 
behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
    NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, 
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). The amount of 
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent 
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors 
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not 
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough 
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the 
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the 
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing 
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the 
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how an animal uses sound within the 
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014), and the 
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and 
spectral).
    Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified 
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a 
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold 
shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; 
Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al. 
2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the 
exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor 
seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in 
marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical 
reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels 
inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS 2018).
    Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase 
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of 
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference 
level (NMFS 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see 
Southall et al. 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum 
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et 
al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2015), 
marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with 
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 
low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small 
and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher 
SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear 
relationships with the noise SEL.
    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 takes place during a time when the animal 
is traveling through the open ocean, 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. We note that 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 we can infer that 
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though 
likely not without cost.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus 
leucas), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Yangtze finless 
porpoise (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five species of pinnipeds 
exposed to a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 
octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS was not 
observed in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) 
seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous 
predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al. 2016). In general, harbor 
seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured 
pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran 2015). Additionally, the 
existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of 
individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-

[[Page 3632]]

induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in 
marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 
please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), 
Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles requires 
a combination of impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving, and in 
this project, down-the-hole drilling. For the project, these activities 
would not occur at the same time and there would likely be pauses in 
activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and 
that many marine mammals are likely moving through the ensonified area 
and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS 
declines.
    Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and 
removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. 
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; 
therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound 
in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the 
signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by 
changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the 
change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the 
stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine 
mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged 
period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant 
(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005).
    Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and 
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; 
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain 
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle 
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw 
clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. 
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water 
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are 
highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on 
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of 
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory 
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors 
(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al. 
2007; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary 
not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on 
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other 
factors (Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary depending on 
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is 
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In 
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more 
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, 
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial 
sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. 
(2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral 
responses to sound.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al. 
2001; Nowacek et al. 2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et al. 2007). A 
determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    In 2016, ADOT&PF documented observations of marine mammals during 
construction activities (i.e., pile driving and down-hole drilling) at 
the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636 for Final IHA). In the marine 
mammal monitoring report for that project (ABR 2016), 1,281 Steller sea 
lions were observed within the behavioral disturbance zone during pile 
driving or drilling (i.e., documented as Level B harassment take). Of 
these, 19 individuals demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were fleeing, 
and 19 swam away from the project site. All other animals were engaged 
in activities such as milling, foraging, or fighting and did not change 
their behavior. In addition, two sea lions approached within 20 m of 
active vibratory pile driving activities. Three harbor seals were 
observed within the disturbance zone during pile driving activities; 
none of them displayed disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer whales and 
three harbor porpoise were also observed within the Level B harassment 
zone during pile driving. The killer whales were travelling or milling 
while all harbor porpoises were travelling. No signs of disturbance 
were noted for either of these species. Given the similarities in 
activities and habitat and the fact the same species are involved, we 
expect similar behavioral responses of marine mammals to the specified 
activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be temporary and 
localized (e.g., small area movements). Monitoring reports from other 
recent pile driving projects have observed similar behaviors, including 
several projects near Sitka (CBS, 2019; Turnagain Marine Construction, 
2017; Turnagain Marine Construction, 2018).
    Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 
2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical 
(in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the 
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress 
typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.

[[Page 3633]]

    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano 
et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g., 
Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that 
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however 
distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of 
marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.
    Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering 
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between 
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator 
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995). Masking occurs when 
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound 
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may 
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar, 
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask 
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both 
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise 
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and 
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, 
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, 
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation 
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities 
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to 
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound 
is high (e.g. on a day with strong wind and high waves), an 
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would 
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked.
    Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project 
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving 
and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, 
depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are 
not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in 
harassment as defined under the MMPA.
    Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are 
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise 
levels exceeding the acoustic thresholds. We recognize that pinnipeds 
in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in 
behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most 
likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to 
those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, 
anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes 
in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause 
them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. 
However, these animals would previously have been `taken' because of 
exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment 
thresholds, which are, in all cases, larger than those associated with 
airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is 
already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, 
we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from 
airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not 
discussed further here.

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects

    HPMS's construction activities could have localized, temporary 
impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-water sound pressure 
levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Construction activities 
are of short duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine 
mammal habitat through increases in underwater sound. Increased noise 
levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and 
adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area 
(see discussion below). During impact and vibratory pile driving, and 
down-the-hole drilling, elevated levels of underwater noise would 
ensonify the canal where both fish and mammals may occur and could 
affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the 
area during construction, however, displacement due to noise is 
expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term 
effects to the individuals or populations.
In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat
    HPMS's project involves installing two new dolphins and modifying 
two existing dolphins. The total seafloor area affected from installing 
new piles is a very small area compared to the vast foraging area 
available to marine mammals in Sitka Sound. Additionally, the new 
pilings installed would provide substrate for invertebrate prey such to 
settle on.
    Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate area due 
to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible. The 
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is 
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and 
behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the 
disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and 
marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in Sitka Sound.
    A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor 
would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are 
installed (and removed in the case of the temporary templates). The 
sediments on the sea floor will be disturbed during pile driving; 
however, suspension will be brief and localized and is unlikely to 
measurably affect marine mammals or their prey in the area. In general, 
turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-
foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 1980). Cetaceans are not 
expected to be close enough to the project pile driving areas to 
experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid 
localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased 
turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals. 
Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project site would not 
obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.
    Impacts to habitat and prey are expected to be temporary and 
minimal based on the short duration of activities.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Prey (Fish)

    The action area supports marine habitat for prey species including 
large

[[Page 3634]]

populations of anadromous fish including Pacific salmon (five species), 
cutthroat and steelhead trout, and Dolly Varden (ADFG 2018); other 
species of marine fish such as halibut, lingcod, Pacific cod, 
greenling, herring, eulachon, and rockfish (ADFG 2018, NMFS 2012); and 
euphausiids (krill) (NMFS 2012). Many anadromous streams flow into 
nearby Sitka Sound including Granite Creek, No Name Creek, and 
Stargavin Creek however, there are no anadromous fish steams at the 
project site (ADFG 2018).
    Construction activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory 
pile driving, down-the-hole drilling) and pulsed (i.e. impact driving) 
sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or 
intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can 
cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. 
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish 
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies 
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are 
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction 
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). 
Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in 
fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior 
(Pearson et al. 1992; Skalski et al. 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength 
have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality.
    The most likely impact to fish from pile driving and drilling 
activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance 
of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile 
driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, 
distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine 
mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the 
short timeframe for the project.
    In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with 
individual pile driving and drilling events, the relatively small areas 
being affected, and the relatively small number of overall days on 
which pile driving activities will occur, pile driving activities 
associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, 
adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. 
Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely 
to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or 
populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal 
habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term 
consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse 
impacts on their populations.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, 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 use 
of the acoustic sources (i.e. pile driving and removal, down-the-hole 
drilling) 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 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 other species/groups. 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 harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. 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 be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral 
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates 
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is 
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a 
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the 
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are 
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B 
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 
received levels of 120 dB re 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa) root mean square 
(rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 
160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
    HPMS's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory 
pile driving and removal, down-the-hole drilling) and impulsive (impact 
pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) are applicable.
    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). HPMS's proposed activity includes the use 
of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive

[[Page 3635]]

(vibratory pile driving and removal, down-the-hole drilling) sources.
    These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

                     Table 5--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PTS onset acoustic thresholds\*\ (received level)
             Hearing group              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impulsive                         Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;   Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                          LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans...........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;   Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                          LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                          LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)..................  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;   Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
(Underwater)...........................   LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW).................  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;   Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
(Underwater)...........................   LE,OW,24h: 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 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
  has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. 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.
    The sound field in the project area is the existing background 
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. 
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the 
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory 
pile driving and removal, down-the-hole drilling). The maximum 
(underwater) area ensonified above the thresholds for behavioral 
harassment referenced above is 55.9km\2\ (21.6mi\2\), and the 
calculated distance to the farthest behavioral harassment isopleth is 
approximately15.8km (9.8mi). Both are governed by landmasses in the 
Sound.
    The project includes vibratory and impact pile installation of 
steel pipe piles, vibratory removal of steel pipe piles, and down-the-
hole drilling. Source levels of pile installation and removal 
activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar 
types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source 
levels for each pile size and activity are presented in Table 6. Source 
levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same 
diameter are assumed to be the same.

                Table 6--Sound Source Levels for Pile Driving Methods and Down-the-Hole Drilling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Source level (SPL at 10m)
      Pile size and  method      ------------------------------------------------        Literature source
                                    dB SEL \b\        dB RMS          dB peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel vibratory                \a\ 168.0  ..............  ..............  Denes et al., 2016.
 installation/removal.
48-inch steel vibratory                \a\ 168.0  ..............  ..............  Denes et al., 2016.
 installation.
33-inch drilled anchor shaft               166.2  ..............  ..............  Denes et al., 2016.
 (down-the-hole drilling).
48-inch steel impact                       197.9           186.7           212.0  Austin et al., 2016
 installation (and 30-inch steel
 impact installation, as
 necessary) c.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source levels used for the impact analyses of vibratory installation/removal of 30-inch and 48-inch piles
  are the same. The most reasonable proxy source level for the 30-inch pile (including comparison of water depth
  and substrate) was 168.0 dB RMS, the median vibratory summary value from the Auke Bay site in Denes et al.
  (2016). For the 48-inch piles, NMFS determined that the median value from pile IP5 in Table 11 of Austin et
  al. (2016), 166.8 dB RMS, was the most appropriate proxy source level; however, this source level was lower
  than the proxy source level for the 30-inch pile. Typically, pile driving source levels are louder for
  installation/removal of larger piles. In effort to conduct a conservative analysis of the effects, NMFS
  adopted 168.0 dB RMS as a proxy source level for vibratory installation of the 48-inch piles as well.
\b\[thinsp]Sound exposure level (dB re 1 [mu]Pa \2\-sec).
\c\ As previously noted, the applicant does not expect impact pile driving of the 30-inch piles to be necessary.
  However, if it is, the applicant will conservatively use source levels and Level A and Level B harassment zone
  calculations, and monitoring zones for impact pile driving of 48-inch steel piles.

    Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an 
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary 
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and 
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition 
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),

Where:

TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from

[[Page 3636]]

the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial 
measurement

    Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured 
transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the 
transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific 
transmission loss data for Old Sitka Dock are not available, therefore 
the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the 
Level A and Level B harassment thresholds.

               Table 7--Pile Driving Source Levels and Distances to Level B Harassment Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Source level at 10m  Level B threshold                        Distance to
       Pile size and method            (dB re 1 [mu]Pa     (dB re 1 [mu]Pa     Propagation          Level B
                                            rms)                rms)             (xLogR)         threshold  (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel vibratory                         a 168.0                120                 15             15,849
 installation/removal.............
48-inch steel vibratory                         a 168.0                120                 15             15,849
 installation.....................
33-inch drilled anchor shaft (down-               166.2                120                 15             12,023
 the-hole drilling)...............
48-inch steel impact installation                 197.9                160                 15              3,363
 (and 30-inch steel impact
 installation, as necessary)......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a As noted in Table 6, source levels for the 30-inch and 48-inch steel pipe piles are the same.

    When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in 
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more 
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in 
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools 
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with 
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that 
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for 
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced 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 pile 
driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a 
marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the 
activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and 
the resulting isopleths are reported below.

                              Table 8--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating Level A Harassment Isopleths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             48-inch pile impact
                                                                                                            installation  (and 30-
                                     48-inch pile vibratory  30-inch pile vibratory     33-inch drilled       inch steel  impact    48-inch pile  impact
 Pile size and installation method         installation        installation/removal   anchor shaft  (down-     installation, as      installation  (PK)
                                                                                       the-hole drilling)    necessary) (SELcum)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used...............  A.1) Vibratory pile     A.1) Vibratory pile     A.1) Vibratory pile    E.1) Impact pile       E.1) Impact pile
                                      driving.                driving.                driving.               driving.               driving
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)..  2.5...................  2.5...................  2.5..................  2....................  2.
Source Level ([email protected]).............  168.0 dB rms..........  168.0 dB rms..........  166.2 dB rms.........  186.7 dB SEL.........  212 dB peak.
Number of piles within 24-h period.  2.....................  2.....................  2....................  2....................
Duration to drive a single pile      60....................  30....................  240..................
 (minutes).
Strike Duration (seconds)..........
Number of strikes per pile.........  ......................  ......................  .....................  135..................
Activity Duration (seconds) within   7,200.................  3,600.................  28,800...............
 24-h period.
Propagation (xLogR)................  15....................  15....................  15...................  15...................
Distance from source level           10....................  10....................  10...................  10...................  10.
 measurement (meters).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 9--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Level A harassment zone (m)
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Activity              Low-frequency   Mid-frequency   High-frequency      Phocid          Otariid
                                    cetaceans       cetaceans       cetaceans        pinnipeds       pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch Pile Vibratory                     20.0             1.8             29.6            12.2             0.9
 Installation/Removal..........
48-inch Pile Vibratory                     31.8             2.8             46.9            19.3             1.4
 Installation..................

[[Page 3637]]

 
33-inch drilled anchor shaft               60.7             5.4             89.7            36.9             2.6
 (down-the-hole drilling)......
48-inch Pile Impact                       736.2            26.2            876.9           394.0            28.7
 Installation (and 30-inch
 steel impact installation, as
 necessary) (SELcum)...........
48-inch Pile Impact                         3.4  ..............             46.4             4.0  ..............
 Installation (and 30-inch
 steel impact installation, as
 necessary) (PK)...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations. We describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Gray Whale
    Straley et al., 2017 documented a group of three gray whales 
duringsurveys between 2002 and 2015, however, no gray whales were 
observed duringmonitoring for other recent construction projects in the 
area (CBS, 2019; TurnagainMarine Construction, 2017; Turnagain Marine 
Construction, 2018). NMFS estimates, that one group of three gray 
whales may occur within the Level B harassment zone during construction 
(3 animals x 1 group x 1 month = 3 Level B harassment takes) and 
therefore, requests three Level B harassment takes of gray whale.
    The largest Level A harassment zone for low-frequency cetaceans 
extends 736.2m from the source during impact pile driving of 48-inch 
piles (or impact pile driving of 30-inch steel piles, as necessary) 
(Table 9). HPMS is planning to implement activity-specific shutdown 
zones (Table 11), which, especially in combination with the already low 
likelihood of grey whales entering the area, are expected to eliminate 
the potential for Level A harassment take of gray whale. Therefore, 
takes of gray whale by Level A harassment have not been requested, and 
are not proposed to be authorized.
Minke Whale
    Two minke whales were taken during the Biorka Island Dock 
Replacement project at the mouth of Sitka Sound (Turnagain Marine 
Construction, 2018). Based on monitoring data from Biorka Island, three 
Level B minke whale takes were authorized for the Sitka O'Connel Bridge 
project, however, no minke whale takes were reported. Both projects 
occurred in the month of June. Straley et al., (2017) did not report 
any observations of minke whales. However, because they were observed 
during the Biorka Island Dock Replacement project, NMFS estimates, that 
one group of three minke whales may occur within the Level B harassment 
zone during the project, and therefore, requests three Level B 
harassment takes of minke whale (3 animals x 1 group x 1 month = 3 
Level B harassment takes).
    The largest Level A harassment zone for low-frequency cetaceans 
extends 736.2m from the source during impact pile driving of 48-inch 
piles (or impact pile driving of 30-inch steel piles, as necessary) 
(Table 9). HPMS is planning to implement activity-specific shutdown 
zones (Table 11), which, especially in combination with the already low 
likelihood of minke whales entering the area, are expected to eliminate 
the potential for Level A harassment take of minke whale. Therefore, 
takes of minke whale by Level A harassment have not been requested, and 
are not proposed to be authorized.

Humpback Whale

    Humpback whales frequent the action area and are likely to enter 
the Level B harassment zone during construction. Humpback whales 
typically occur in groups of two to four animals in the area (Straley 
et al., 2017). Given the large Level B harassment zone, HPMS estimates, 
and NMFS preliminarily concurs, that four groups of two humpback whales 
may occur within the Level B harassment zone on each of the 19 days of 
in-water construction (2 animals in a group x 4 groups each day x 19 
days = 152 Level B harassment takes). Therefore, the HPMS requests 
authorization for 152 Level B takes of humpback whales.
    For ESA Section 7 consultation purposes, NMFS estimates that 93.9 
percent of humpback whales in the project area are from the non-listed 
Hawaii DPS, and 6.1 percent of humpback whales in the project area are 
from the threatened Mexico DPS (Wade et al., 2016). Therefore, of the 
152 Level B harassment takes requested, 143 takes are expected to be of 
humpback whales from the Hawaii DPS and 9 takes are expected to be of 
humpbacks from the Mexico DPS.
    The largest Level A harassment zone for humpback whale extends 
736.2m from the source during impact pile driving of 48-inch piles 
(Table 9). HPMS is planning to implement activity-specific shutdown 
zones (Table 11), which, given the behavior and visibility of humpback 
whales, are expected to eliminate the potential for Level A harassment 
take of humpback whale. Therefore, takes of humpback whale by Level A 
harassment have not been requested, and are not proposed to be 
authorized.
Killer Whale
    Forty-four (44) killer whales were observed during 190 hours of 
observation from Whale Point between September and May from 1994 to 
2002 (Straley et al., 2017). Three killer whales were documented in 
Sitka Channel on one day in January 2017 during the Petro Marine Dock 
construction (Windward 2017). Seven killer whales were observed in 
June, but no killer whales were seen in July, August, or September in 
2018 at Biorka Island (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2018). No killer 
whales were observed in October or November 2017 on the western side of 
Eastern Channel or Silver Bay (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017).
    During work on GPIP Dock, groups of five and 10 individuals were 
seen a few times, but, typically, single whales were observed near the 
mouth of Silver Bay (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017). Straley et 
al.'s (2017) survey data indicates a typical killer whale group size 
between 4 and 8 individuals in Sitka Sound. Therefore, taking all of 
this information into consideration, HPMS estimates, and NMFS 
preliminarily concurs, that one group of eight killer whales may enter 
the Level B harassment zone each week (8 animals in a group x 1 group 
per week x 3 weeks of activity = 24 Level B harassment takes) and has 
therefore, requested a total of 24 Level B harassment takes of

[[Page 3638]]

killer whales. Killer whales from all four stocks listed in Table 3 
have the potential to be taken by Level B harassment.
    The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans 
extends 26.2m from the source during impact installation of the 48-inch 
piles (or impact pile driving of 30-inch steel piles, as necessary) 
(Table 9). HPMS is planning to implement activity-specific shutdown 
zones (Table 11), which, given the small size of the zone and the 
visibility of killer whales, are expected to eliminate the potential 
for Level A harassment take of killer whale. Therefore, takes of killer 
whale by Level A harassment have not been requested, and are not 
proposed to be authorized.
Harbor Porpoise
    Harbor porpoises commonly frequent nearshore waters, but are not 
common in the project vicinity. Monthly tallies from observations from 
Sitka's Whale Park show harbor porpoises occurring infrequently in or 
near the action area in March, April, and October between 1994 to 2002 
(Straley et al., 2017). However, no harbor porpoises have been observed 
more recently during monitoring. No harbor porpoises were seen during 
the Petro Marine Dock construction monitoring in January 2017 
(Windward, 2017), during monitoring for the GPIP dock between October 
of November of 2017 (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017), or during 
monitoring for the Sitka O'Connel Bridge project in 2019 (CBS, 2019). 
Halibut Point Marine staff indicated that they have not seen a harbor 
porpoise near the project site during the past 5 years (HPMS 2019).
    The mean group size of harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska is 
estimated at two to three individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009), however, 
in Straley et al. (2017) found that typical group size in the project 
area is five animals. HPMS conservatively estimates, and NMFS concurs 
that one group of five harbor porpoises may enter the Level B 
harassment zone on each project day (5 animals in a group x 1 group per 
day x 19 project days = 95 Level B harassment takes) and has therefore, 
requested a total of 95 Level B harassment takes of harbor porpoise.
    Given the size of the Level A harassment zone and the relative 
expected frequency of harbor porpoises entering the zone, we are 
proposing to require a shutdown zone that is smaller than the area 
within which Level A harassment could occur in order to ensure that 
pile driving is not interrupted to the degree that the activities are 
extended over additional days. Therefore, there is a small chance that 
Level A harassment could occur and NMFS is proposing to authorize Level 
A harassment take of one harbor porpoise on each day that impact pile 
driving is expected occur (see Description of Proposed Activity) for a 
total of five Level A harassment takes (1 Level A harassment take x 5 
impact pile driving days = 5 Level A harassment takes). NMFS recognizes 
that HPMS may install the piles at a slightly slower rate resulting in 
more impact pile driving days; however, given the extremely short 
duration of impact pile driving on each pile, NMFS still would not 
expect that Level A harassment would exceed five takes. No Level A 
harassment takes of harbor porpoise were recorded in the Sitka GPIP 
Dock project (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017) despite Level A 
harassment takes included in the authorizations. However, the Old Sitka 
Dock project has a longer work period and larger Level A harassment 
zones than the Sitka GPIP Dock project.
Harbor Seal
    Harbor seals are common in the inside waters of southeastern 
Alaska, including in Sitka Sound and within the project action area. 
The species were seen during most months of monitoring (September 
through May) from Whale Park between 1994 and 2002, except in December 
and May (Straley et al., 2017). Harbor seals were seen on 10 out of the 
21 days of monitoring for GPIP dock construction between October and 
November 2017, and two out of eight days of monitoring for the Petro 
Marine dock in January 2017 (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017 and 
Windward 2017).
    Straley et al.'s (2017) data indicates a typical group size between 
one and two harbor seals. Observations during the original construction 
of the Halibut Point Marine Services dock facility recorded zero harbor 
seals within the 200-meter shutdown zone during pile driving 
operations. Observers indicated only observing individual seals outside 
the 200-meter zone two to three times per week. (McGraw, pers. com., 
2019).
    Harbor seals haul out of the water periodically to rest, give 
birth, and nurse their pups. According to the Alaska Fisheries Science 
Center's list of harbor seal haul-out locations, the closest listed 
haulout (id CE49) is located in Sitka Sound approximately 6.4 km (3.5 
nmi) southwest, of the project site (AFSC, 2019).
    HMPS estimates, and NMFS preliminarily concurs, that three groups 
of three harbor seals may enter the Level B harassment zone on each 
project day and has, therefore, requested a total of 171 Level B 
harassment takes of harbor seal (3 animals in a group x 3 groups per 
day x 19 days = 171 Level B harassment takes).
    Given the size of the zone and the relative expected frequency of 
harbor seals entering the zone, we are proposing a to require a 
shutdown zone that is smaller than the area within which Level A 
harassment could occur in order to ensure that pile driving is not 
interrupted to the degree that the activities are extended over 
additional days. Therefore, there is a small chance that Level A 
harassment could occur, and NMFS is proposing to authorize Level A 
harassment take of one harbor seal on each day that impact pile driving 
is expected occur (see Description of Proposed Activity) for a total of 
five Level A harassment takes (1 Level A harassment take x 5 impact 
pile driving days = 5 Level A harassment takes). NMFS recognizes that 
HPMS may install the piles at a slightly slower rate resulting in more 
impact pile driving days; however, given the extremely short duration 
of impact pile driving on each pile, NMFS still would not expect that 
Level A harassment would exceed five takes. No Level A harassment takes 
of harbor seal were recorded for either the Sitka O'Connel Bridge 
project (CBS, 2019), the Sitka GPIP Dock project (Turnagain Marine 
Construction, 2017), however, the Old Sitka Dock project has a longer 
work period, and larger Level A harassment zones than the Sitka GPIP 
Dock project.
Steller Sea Lion
    Steller sea lions are common in the project area. They were 
observed during every month of monitoring (September to May) between 
1994 and 2002 (Straley et al., 2017). Steller sea lions were also 
observed on 19 of 21 days in Silver Bay and Easter Channel during 
monitoring for GPIP dock construction between October and November 2017 
(Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017). During eight days of monitoring 
for the Petro Marine dock in January 2017, Steller sea lions were seen 
on three days (Windward, 2017).
    During Straley et al.'s (2017) surveys, sea lions typically 
occurred in groups of two to three; however, a group of more than 100 
was sighted on at least one occasion. Steller sea lions in groups of 
one to eight individuals were observed around Sitka GPIP dock 
construction (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2017), while all Steller 
sea lions were observed individually in Sitka Channel during Petro 
Marine Dock construction monitoring (Windward, 2017). Observations 
during the original

[[Page 3639]]

construction of the Halibut Point Marine Services dock facility 
recorded zero Steller sea lions within the 200-meter shutdown zone 
during pile driving operations. Observers indicated observing 
individual sea lions outside the 200-meter zone four to five times per 
week. (McGraw, pers. comm., 2019).
    During the summer months, sea lions are seen in the project area 
daily. Two to three individual sea lions feed on fish carcasses dumped 
adjacent to the project site from fishing charter operations in a 
nearby private marina. However, during the proposed project timing of 
fall and winter, the charter fishing operations are not underway and 
the sea lions are not as active in the area (McGraw, pers. comm., 
2019).
    HPMS conservatively estimates, and NMFS preliminarily concurs, that 
two groups of eight Steller sea lions (maximum group size observed 
during the Sitka GPIP dock construction (Turnagain Marine Construction, 
2017)) may occur within the Level B harassment zone on each of the 19 
days of in-water construction (8 animals in a group x 2 groups each day 
x 19 days = 304 Level B harassment takes). Therefore, HPMS requests 
authorization for 304 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea lions.
    The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 28.7m from 
the source during impact pile driving of 48-inch piles (Table 9). HPMS 
is planning to implement activity-specific shutdown zones (Table 11), 
which, given the small size of the Level A harassment zones, are 
expected to eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of 
Steller sea lion. Therefore, takes of Steller sea lion by Level A 
harassment have not been requested, and are not proposed to be 
authorized.
    Sea lions from both the Eastern DPS and Western DPS are present in 
Sitka Sound. According to Hastings et al. (in press), 3.1 percent of 
Steller sea lions in the project area are expected to be from the ESA-
listed Western DPS, with the remaining 96.9 percent expected to be from 
the Eastern DPS. Therefore, of the 304 Level B harassment takes 
requested, 9 takes are expected to be of Steller sea lions from the 
ESA-listed Western DPS (western stock) and 295 are expected to be of 
Steller sea lions from the Eastern DPS (eastern stock).

                                    Table 10--Estimated Take by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Level A         Level B
                Common name                             Stock               harassment      harassment      Total take         Stock        Percent of
                                                                               take            take                          abundance         stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Whale................................  Eastern North Pacific.......               0               3               3          26,960            0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minke Whale...............................  Alaska......................               0               3               3              NA              NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale............................  Central North Pacific.......               0             152           a 152          10,103             1.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer Whale..............................  Eastern North Pacific Alaska               0              24            b 24           2,347             1.0
                                             Resident.
                                                                         ------------------------------------------------
                                            Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian                                                                 587             4.1
                                             Islands, Bering Sea
                                             Transient.
                                            Eastern North Pacific                                                                    302             7.9
                                             Northern Resident.
                                            West Coast Transient.                                                                    243             9.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Porpoise...........................  Southeast Alaska............               5              95             100             975            10.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion c........................  Eastern U.S.................               0             295             295          43,201             0.7
                                            Western U.S.................  ..............               9               9          53,624            0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal...............................  Sitka/Chatham Strait........               5             171             176          13,289             1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Of the proposed 152 Level B harassment takes, 143 takes are expected to be of humpback whales from the Hawaii DPS and 9 takes are expected to be of
  humpbacks from the Mexico DPS.
b It is unknown what stock taken individuals may belong to. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the percent of each stock that may be taken, it is
  assumed that up to 24 takes could occur to individuals of any of the stocks that occur in the project area.
c Eastern U.S. and Western U.S. stocks correspond to the Eastern DPS and Western DPS, respectively.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (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;

[[Page 3640]]

    (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.
    In addition to the measures described later in this section, HPMS 
will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
     Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and 
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all 
pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures;
     No in-water construction will take place between March 1 
and October 1 to minimize disruption to the Sitka Sound herring 
spawning and impacts to marine mammals that congregate in Sitka Sound 
during the herring spawning and summer months to feed on prey.
     For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving 
(e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, 
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum 
level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This 
type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of 
the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the 
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
     HPMS will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer until 
achieving a desired depth or refusal prior to using an impact hammer;
     For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take 
has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal will shut 
down immediately if such species are observed within or on a path 
towards the Level B harassment zone; and
     If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized 
species, pile installation will be stopped as these species approach 
the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
    The following mitigation measures would apply to HPMS's in-water 
construction activities.
    Additionally, HPMS is required to implement all mitigation measures 
described in the biological opinion (not yet issued).
    Establishment of Shutdown Zones- HPMS will establish shutdown zones 
for all pile driving/removal and drilling activities. The purpose of a 
shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of 
the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in 
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones 
will vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group 
(see Table 11). The largest shutdown zones are generally for low 
frequency and high frequency cetaceans as shown in Table 11. For low-
frequency cetaceans, the shutdown zones contain the entire Level A 
harassment zones to help prevent Level A harassment takes, as the 
project area overlaps with humpback and gray whale BIAs as previously 
discussed.
    The placement of PSOs during all pile driving and removal and 
drilling activities (described in detail in the Proposed Monitoring and 
Reporting section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible 
during pile installation. Should environmental conditions deteriorate 
such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be 
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal must be 
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown 
zone could be detected.

            Table 11--Shutdown Zones During Pile Installation and Removal, and Down-the-Hole Drilling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Shutdown zone (m)
            Activity             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   LF cetaceans    MF cetaceans    HF cetaceans       Phocids        Otariids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch Vibratory Pile Driving/               50              10              50              25              10
 Removal........................
48-inch Vibratory Pile Driving..              50              10              50              25              10
Down-the-hole Drilling..........             150              10             100             100              10
48-inch Impact Pile Driving (and             750              50             100             100              50
 30-inch impact pile driving, as
 necessary).....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment--HPMS will monitor 
the Level B harassment zones (areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed 
the 160 dB rms threshold for impact driving and the 120 dB rms 
threshold during vibratory driving and drilling) and Level A harassment 
zones. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing 
monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 
Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the 
presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown 
zone and thus prepare for a potential cease of activity should the 
animal enter the shutdown zone. Placement of PSOs on the shorelines 
around Sitka Channel allow PSOs to observe marine mammals within the 
Level A and Level B harassment zones. Due to the large Level B 
harassment zones (Table 7), PSOs will not be able to effectively 
observe the entire zone. Therefore, Level B harassment exposures will 
be recorded and extrapolated based upon the number of observed takes 
and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was not visible.
    Soft Start--Soft-start procedures are believed to provide 
additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or 
giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer 
operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors would 
be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer 
at forty-percent energy, followed by a one-minute waiting period. This 
procedure would be conducted a total of three times before impact pile 
driving begins. Soft start would be implemented at the start of each 
day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact 
pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
    Pre-activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water 
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/removal or 
drilling of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 
and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will 
be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within 
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed 
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal 
has left the zone or has not been

[[Page 3641]]

observed for 15 minutes if it is a pinniped or small cetacean, or 30 
minutes if it is a large cetacean. If the Level B harassment zone has 
been observed for 30 minutes and no species for which take is not 
authorized are present within the zone, soft start procedures can 
commence and work can continue even if visibility becomes impaired 
within the Level B harassment monitoring zone. When a marine mammal for 
which Level B harassment take is authorized is present in the Level B 
harassment zone, activities may begin and Level B harassment take will 
be recorded. If the entire Level B harassment zone is not visible at 
the start of construction, piling or drilling activities can begin. If 
work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of 
both the Level B harassment zone and shutdown zones will commence.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as to ensuring that the most value is obtained from 
the required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring

    Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the 
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, dated December 2019. Marine mammal 
monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-
approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
     Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who 
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;
     Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological 
science or related field) or training for experience;
     Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead 
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead 
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer 
during construction;
     HPMS must submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS prior to the 
onset of pile driving.
    PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
     Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation 
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); 
and marine mammal behavior; and
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals 
observed in the area as necessary.
    Three PSOs will be employed during all pile driving/removal and 
drilling activities. PSO locations will provide an unobstructed view of 
all water within the shutdown zone, and as much of the Level A and 
Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations are as follows:
    (1) At or near the site of pile driving;
    (2) Big Gavanski Island--During vibratory pile driving and down-
the-hole drilling, this PSO will be stationed on the north end of the 
island, and positioned to view north into Olga Straight and southeast 
toward the project area. For impact pile driving, this PSO will be 
stationed on the east side of the island, and positioned to be able to 
view north into Olga Straight and south toward the project area; and
    (3) Middle Island--During vibratory pile driving and down-the-hole 
drilling, this PSO will be stationed on the north end of the island and 
positioned to be able to view west toward Kruzoff Island and east 
toward the project area. During impact pile driving, this PSO will be 
stationed on the east side of the island and positioned to view south 
toward Sitka Channel and east toward the project area.
    Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 
minutes after pile driving/removal and drilling activities. In 
addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal 
occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document 
any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being 
driven or removed or anchor shafts being drilled. Pile driving and 
drilling activities include the time to install, remove, or drill 
inside a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed 
between uses of the pile driving or drilling equipment is no more than 
thirty minutes.

Reporting

    A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS 
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal 
activities. The report will include an overall description of work 
completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal

[[Page 3642]]

sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report 
must include:
     Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
     Construction activities occurring during each observation 
period;
     Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
     Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
     Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of 
marine mammals;
     Description of any observable marine mammal behavior 
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from 
pile driving activity;
     Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals 
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
     Locations of all marine mammal observations;
     Detailed information about any implementation of any 
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of 
specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if 
any.
     Description of attempts to distinguish between the number 
of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such 
as ability to track groups or individuals.
     An extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B 
harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B 
harassment zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that 
was not visible; and
     Other human activity in the area.
    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft 
report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a 
final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days 
after receipt of comments.
    In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities 
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder shall report 
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (301-427-8401), 
NMFS and to the Alaska regional stranding coordinator (907-586-7209) as 
soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:
    [ssquf] Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
    [ssquf] Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
    [ssquf] Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
    [ssquf] Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
    [ssquf] If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
    [ssquf] General circumstances under which the animal was 
discovered.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, the majority of our analyses apply to all of 
the species listed in Table 10, given that many of the anticipated 
effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected 
to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful 
differences between species or stocks in anticipated individual 
responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due 
to differences in population status or impacts on habitat, they are 
described independently in the analysis below.
    Pile driving/removal and drilling activities associated with the 
project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or 
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may 
result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment, from 
underwater sounds generated from pile driving/removal and down-the-hole 
drilling. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species 
are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level A or 
Level B harassment, identified above, when these activities are 
underway.
    The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to 
potential behavioral disturbance, TTS and PTS. No mortality or serious 
injury is anticipated given the nature of the activity. Level A 
harassment is only anticipated for harbor seal and harbor porpoise. The 
potential for Level A harassment is minimized through the construction 
method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see 
Proposed Mitigation section).
    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the 
basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other 
similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as 
increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased 
foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 
2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma 2014; ABR 2016). Most likely for pile 
driving and down-the-hole drilling, individuals will simply move away 
from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of 
pile driving and drilling, although even this reaction has been 
observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. Level 
B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse 
impact through use of mitigation measures described herein. If sound 
produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are 
likely to simply avoid the area while the activity is occurring. While 
vibratory driving associated with the proposed project may produce 
sound at distances of many kilometers from the project site, the 
project site itself is located in an active marine industrial area, as 
previously described. Therefore, we expect that animals annoyed by 
project sound would simply avoid the area and use more-preferred 
habitats, particularly as the project is expected to occur over just 19 
in-water work days, with a maximum of eight hours of work per day, 
though less on most work days.
    In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level 
B harassment, we anticipate that harbor porpoises and harbor seals may 
sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury. 
However, animals that experience PTS would likely only receive slight 
PTS, i.e. minor degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of 
hearing that align most completely with the frequency range of

[[Page 3643]]

the energy produced by pile driving, i.e. the low-frequency region 
below 2 kHz, not severe hearing impairment or impairment in the regions 
of greatest hearing sensitivity. If hearing impairment occurs, it is 
most likely that the affected animal would lose a few decibels in its 
hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to meaningfully 
affect its ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics.
    The project is also not expected to have significant adverse 
effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities 
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant 
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of 
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging 
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because 
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area 
of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal 
habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative 
consequences.
    Steller sea lion critical habitat has been defined in Southeast 
Alaska at major haulouts and major rookeries (50 CFR 226.202), however, 
the action area does not overlap with any Steller sea lion critical 
habitat. The closest Steller sea lion critical habitat to the project 
area is Kaiuchali Island, a three-acre rocky islet located slightly 
less than one mile southwest of Biorka Island. It is listed as ``Biorka 
Island'' in the critical habitat descriptions, and is over 25 km (13.5 
nmi) southwest of the project area.
    Critical habitat was recently proposed for the humpback whale in 
Southeast Alaska, including Sitka Sound (84 FR 54354, October 9, 2019), 
but it has not yet been finalized. Additionally, Sitka Sound is within 
the seasonal southeast Alaska humpback whale feeding BIA from March 
through November (Ferguson et al., 2015). Construction is expected to 
occur during the tail end of the season specified for the BIA; however, 
project activities would only overlap with the BIA for approximately 
one to two months, and the project is expected to occur over just 19 
in-water work days, further reducing the temporal overlap with the BIA. 
Additionally, the area of the BIA that may be affected by the planned 
project is small relative to both the overall area of the BIA and the 
overall area of suitable humpback whale habitat outside of this BIA. 
Therefore, take of humpback whales using the southeast Alaska humpback 
whale feeding BIA is not expected to impact reproduction or 
survivorship.
    Sitka Sound is also within a gray whale migratory corridor BIA 
(Ferguson et al., 2015). Construction is expected to occur during the 
beginning of the period of highest density in the BIA during the 
southbound migration (November to January). The Sound is also within 
the southeast Alaska BIA, an important area for gray whale feeding. 
Construction is expected to overlap with the end of the period with the 
highest gray whale densities in the southeast Alaska BIA (May through 
November). However, as noted for humpback whales, project activities 
would only overlap with high animal densities in the gray whale 
migratory and feeding BIAs for approximately one to two months, and the 
project is expected to occur over just 19 in-water workdays, further 
reducing the temporal overlap with the BIAs. Additionally, the area of 
the feeding BIA in which impacts of the planned project may occur is 
small relative to both the overall area of the BIA and the overall area 
of suitable gray whale habitat outside of this BIA. The area of Sitka 
Sound affected is also small relative to the rest of the Sound, such 
that it allows animals within the migratory corridor to still utilize 
Sitka Sound without necessarily being disturbed by the construction. 
Therefore, take of gray whales using the feeding and migratory BIAs is 
not expected to impact reproduction or survivorship.
    As noted previously, since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale 
strandings have occurred along the west coast of North America from 
Mexico through Alaska. The event has been declared an UME, though a 
cause has not yet been determined. While three Level B harassment takes 
of gray whale are proposed to be authorized, this is an extremely small 
portion of the stock (0.01 percent), and HPMS would be required to 
implement a shutdown zone that includes the entire Level A harassment 
zone for low-frequency cetaceans such as gray whales.
    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 or serious injury is anticipated or 
authorized;
     The relatively small number of Level A harassment 
exposures are anticipated to result only in slight PTS within the lower 
frequencies associated with pile driving;
     The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would 
consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would 
not result in fitness impacts to individuals;
     The area impacted by the specified activity is very small 
relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species, BIAs, and 
proposed humpback whale critical habitat; and
     The activity is expected to occur over 19 in-water 
workdays with a maximum of eight hours of work per day, though less on 
most days.
    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 Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to 
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative 
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or 
spatial scale of the activities.
    The number of takes for each species proposed to be taken as a 
result of this project is included in Table 10. Our analysis shows that 
less than 11 percent of each stock could be taken by harassment. 
Furthermore, these percentages conservatively assume that all takes of 
killer whale will be accrued to a single stock, when multiple stocks 
are known to occur in the project area. For the Alaska stock of minke 
whale, a lack of an accepted stock abundance value did not allow for 
the calculation of an expected percentage of the population that would 
be affected. The most relevant estimate of partial stock abundance is 
1,233 minke whales for a portion of the Gulf of Alaska (Zerbini et al. 
2006). Given three proposed takes by Level B harassment for the stock, 
comparison to the best estimate of stock abundance shows less than one 
percent of the stock is expected to be impacted. The number of animals 
proposed to be taken for these stocks would be considered small 
relative to the relevant stock's abundances even if each

[[Page 3644]]

estimated taking occurred to a new individual, which is an unlikely 
scenario.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity 
(including the proposed 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 IHA, NMFS must find that the specified 
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by 
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) 
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing 
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly 
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers 
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The proposed Project is in an area where subsistence hunting for 
harbor seals or sea lions could occur (Wolfe et al. 2013). Peak hunting 
season in southeast Alaska occurs during the month of November and 
again during March and April. During this time, seals are aggregated in 
shoal areas as they prey on forage species such as herring, making them 
easier to find and hunt (Wolfe et al. 2013). However, the project 
location is not preferred for hunting. There is little-to-no hunting 
documented in the vicinity and there are no harvest quotas for non-
listed marine mammals. As such, the Old Sitka Dock North Dolphins 
Expansion Project is not expected to have impacts on the ability of 
hunters from southeast Alaska subsistence communities to harvest marine 
mammals. Additionally, HPMS contacted the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, but 
they did not raise any concerns regarding subsistence impacts. 
Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an 
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from HPMS's proposed 
activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the Alaska Region, 
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize 
take for endangered or threatened species.
    NMFS is proposing to authorize take of Mexico DPS humpback whales 
and Western DPS 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 issuance of this IHA. NMFS 
will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination 
regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to Halibut Point Marine Services LLC for conducting pile 
driving and removal and down-the-hole drilling activities in Sitka, AK 
in fall 2020 to winter 2021, provided the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A 
draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed 
project. We also request at this time comment on the potential Renewal 
of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please 
include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations 
to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent 
Renewal IHA.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year Renewal IHA 
following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for 
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly 
identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the 
Specified Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the 
activities as described in the Specified Activities section of this 
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal 
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in 
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the 
following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the 
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from 
expiration of the initial IHA);
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under 
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so 
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the 
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take 
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take); 
and
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized; and
     Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

    Dated: January 16, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-01001 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P