Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project, 18492-18516 [E9-9369]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 77 (Thursday, April 23, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18492-18516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9369]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 217

[Docket No. 090206146-9332-01]
RIN 0648-AX32


Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to the Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Redevelopment 
Project

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the Port of Anchorage

[[Page 18493]]

(herein after ``POA'') and the U.S. Department of Transportation 
Maritime Administration (herein after ``MARAD'') for issuance of 
regulations governing the take of small numbers of marine mammals 
incidental to the Port's Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project (herein 
after ``MTRP''), Anchorage, Alaska. The MTRP includes expanding the 
current POA by 135 acres and replacing and expanding the current dock 
to accommodate additional berths. Construction activities which have 
the potential to harass marine mammals include in-water pile driving 
and demolition of the existing dock. Species which could potentially be 
taken from the MTRP include the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), 
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and 
killer whale (Orcinus orca).

DATES: Comments and information must be postmarked no later than May 
26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
     Hand delivery or mailing of paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
comments should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 
Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910-3225.
    Instructions: A copy of the application containing a list of 
references used in this document, Demolition Plan, Final Marine Mammal 
Monitoring Report for 2008, the Final 2008 Environmental Assessment 
(EA), and the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) may be 
obtained by writing to the above address, by telephoning the contact 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or on the Internet at: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 
Documents cited in this proposed rule may also be viewed, by 
appointment, during regular business hours at the above address. To 
help NMFS process and review comments more efficiently, please use only 
one method to submit comments. Attachments to electronic comments will 
be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 
formats only.
    All comments received are public record and will generally be 
posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal 
Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily 
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit 
Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected 
information. To submit anonymous comments, enter N/A in the required 
fields.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, NMFS, 301-713-2289, ext 
151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs 
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but 
not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage 
in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain 
findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is 
limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided 
to the public for review. Except with respect to certain activities not 
pertinent here, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
    any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (I) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[Level B harassment].
    Authorization for incidental takings may be granted for up to 5 
years if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on 
the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence 
uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as: ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    On July 14, 2008, NMFS issued a one-year incidental harassment 
authorization (IHA) to the POA/MARAD for takes of marine mammals 
incidental to the MTRP (73 FR 41318, July 18, 2008). Intent to 
promulgate regulations was included in the March 18, 2008 Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA (73 FR 14443, March 18, 2008); 
however, on November 20, 2008, NMFS received an updated application 
from the POA/MARAD specifically for regulations. The application 
included, among other things, information on the demolition process of 
the existing dock, detailed take calculations, results from marine 
mammal monitoring conducted under the IHA, results of a more robust 
acoustic study, and additional mitigation. NMFS published a notice of 
receipt of application and solicitation for public comments on the 
application (73 FR 77013, December 18, 2008). NMFS is now inviting 
comments on the following proposed regulations for taking of marine 
mammals as described in this notice.

Summary of Request

    On November 20, 2008, NMFS received an application from the POA/
MARAD for regulations and subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to 
take, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals incidental to the 
MTRP. The POA/MARAD have been in discussions with NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources Permits Division and Alaska Regional Office (AKR), 
Anchorage, since inception of the MTRP (2003) to ensure compliance with 
the MMPA and to reduce impact to marine mammals and their habitat. In 
2008, NMFS issued the POA/MARAD a one-year IHA authorizing incidental 
take of marine mammals from pile driving (73 FR 41318, July 18, 2008). 
The IHA, which expires on July 15, 2009, authorizes the take, by Level 
B harassment only, of 34 beluga whales, 20 harbor seals, 20 harbor 
porpoise, and 5 killer whales. To date, marine mammal observations 
(submitted by trained, NMFS approved observers on-site at the POA and a 
second independent scientific marine mammal monitoring team) indicate 
that the effects analysis in NMFS 2008 Environmental Assessment (EA) on 
the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization and Subsequent 
Rulemaking for Take of Small Numbers of Marine Mammals Incidental to 
the Port of Anchorage Terminal Redevelopment Project, Anchorage, Alaska 
is appropriate and justifiable as pile driving noise does not appear to 
impact beluga whale surface behavior (see Impacts to Marine Mammals). 
The POA/MARAD's LOA application, supporting documents, NMFS' 2008 EA 
and Supplemental EA (SEA) can be found on the NMFS Protected Resources 
Permits website at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

Specified Activity

    According to the application, the MTRP is designed to upgrade and 
expand the existing POA facilities by removing and replacing aging and 
obsolete structures and providing

[[Page 18494]]

additional dock and backland areas, without disruption of maritime 
service during construction. The POA serves 85 percent of the 
population within the State of Alaska by providing 90 percent of all 
consumer goods and is an economic engine for the State of Alaska. The 
rehabilitation and expansion of the POA is critical to improving 
national defense capabilities and provides additional land and 
facilities necessary to support military deployments during and after 
construction. The POA is one of nineteen nationally designated 
Strategic Ports with direct calls scheduled by the Department of 
Defense for critical deployments in-and-out of Alaska's military bases 
and training facilities (Fort Greely, Eielson Air Force Base, Fort 
Wainwright, Fort Richardson, and Elmendorf Air Force Base [EAFB]) to 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other defense theaters around the globe. POA 
operations began in the early 1960s with little build-up in the past 
fifty years and is currently under-serving Alaska's transportation 
system as its primary hub.
    Located within the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) on Knik Arm in 
upper Cook Inlet, the existing 129-acre POA facility is currently 
operating at or above sustainable practicable capacity for the various 
types of cargo handled at the facility. In addition, the existing 
infrastructure and support facilities are substantially past their 
design life, have degraded to levels of marginal safety, and are in 
many cases functionally obsolete. The MTRP will replace, upgrade, and 
expand the current POA facility to address existing needs and projected 
future needs, allowing the POA to adequately support the economic 
growth of Anchorage and the State of Alaska through 2025 and beyond. 
Upon completion, the phased MTRP will add 135 acres of usuable land to 
the current 129 acre POA (total area of 264 acres). The completed 
marine terminal at the POA will include: seven modern dedicated ship 
berths; two dedicated barge berths; rail access and intertie to the 
Alaskan railbelt; roadway improvements; security and lighting 
improvements; slope stability improvements; drainage improvements; 
modern shore-side docking facilities; equipment to accommodate cruise 
passengers, bulk, break-bulk, roll on/roll off (RO-RO) and load on/load 
off (LO-LO) cargo, general cargo short-term storage, military queuing 
and staging, and petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) transfer and 
storage; and additional land area to support expanding military and 
commercial operations.
    Creation of over 65 of the 135 unimproved acres have been completed 
to date in preparation of accepting new container cranes and relocating 
shipping operations by the year 2010: thus far, 26.8 acres were added 
in 2006; 22.4 acres were added in 2007; and 18.4 acres were added in 
2008. Future efforts will add 8.4 acres in 2010; 14.15 acres will be 
added in 2011; 29.85 acres will be added in 2012; and 15.35 acres in 
2013. NMFS and environmental organizations have worked with the POA/
MARAD to ensure minimal impact to natural resources and were heavily 
involved in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) scoping process 
for issuance of the POA/MARAD's USACE Section 404/10 Permit POA-2003-
502-N (located in Appendix B of the LOA application). As a result, 
numerous mitigation measures to protect natural resources, including 
beluga whales, habitat, and fish are contained in that USACE permit.
    In a letter dated May 9, 2006, NMFS determined that non pile 
driving related in-water construction activities (i.e., construction of 
a dike, discharge, settlement and compaction of fill material, 
installation of utilities, and paving within a 27-acre intertidal area) 
would not result in takes of marine mammals and therefore did not 
require an MMPA authorization if certain operational procedures and 
mitigation measures were implemented by the POA/MARAD. In contrast, 
NMFS determined that an incidental take authorization was necessary for 
in-water pile driving operations and issued the aforementioned IHA in 
July 2008 after NMFS concluded that all required MMPA determinations 
were met. Marine mammal takes from in-water construction activities, 
specifically in-water pile driving and demolition of the existing dock 
structure, would be authorized by this proposed rulemaking.
     The POA/MARAD have submitted a detailed schedule of in-water 
construction activities. Please refer to Table 1-1 and Section 1.3.1. 
in the application for a description. In general, pile driving would 
occur from April to October/November when sea ice is absent but could 
start earlier or later depending on presence of sea ice. Pile driving 
cannot occur during winter months due to the danger of floating sea 
ice. NMFS suggested this option to the POA early in discussions about 
the MTRP but it is clear installing piles during winter is hazardous to 
workers' safety and could damage material. The schedule in Table 1-1 of 
the application may change slightly based on unanticipated construction 
delays. Potential causes of schedule delay might include: changes in 
planned construction sequencing due to changes in commercial or 
military maritime operations, changes in USACE harbor dredging 
schedules to maintain navigation, longer than anticipated settlement 
and consolidation time for foundation soils or other unanticipated site 
conditions, national security requirements prohibiting or delaying 
construction access, delays in steel production or longer than 
anticipated delivery or availability of construction materials, changes 
in planned funding or financing, prolonged work stoppages due to 
presence and protection of marine mammals or other regulatory actions 
affecting construction schedules, prolonged shut downs due to inclement 
weather, or other force majeure causes.

Pile Driving

Open Cell Sheet Pile Installation
    The new bulkhead waterfront structure will be comprised of 
conjoining face and tail sheet-pile cells, forming a row of U-shaped 
open cell sheet pile (OCSP) structures, with the face placed parallel 
to and approximately 400 ft (122 m) seaward of the existing dock face. 
The face of each OCSP cell is curved outward, creating a scalloped 
surface (see application for figures of sheet pile design). The 
finished marine terminal will abut and tie into the Flint Hills open 
cell sheet pile retaining wall currently on the adjacent Railroad 
property; however, the existing Flint Hills structure is not part of 
the MTRP.
    Individual face sheets are approximately 20 inches wide 
horizontally, 0.5-inch thick, and up to a maximum of 90 ft in vertical 
length; 17 sheets are required for each cell face. At each junction 
between cells, a tail wall is constructed and anchored to the face 
sheets with a wye connector. The tail walls are spaced 27.5 ft apart. 
The arc along the U-shaped face is approximately 28 ft. The face sheets 
will be up to 80 ft in length in the areas with -35 ft berths and up to 
90 ft long in the -45 ft berths. The tail wall sheets vary from 30 ft 
to 90 ft long, but generally are 70 ft for the primary tail walls and 
30 ft for the tail wall extensions. Approximately 30 linear ft of OCSP 
wall could be constructed in a 10-hour period.
    The face and immediately adjoining primary tail walls are installed 
using vibratory or impact pile driving procedures from either land-
based or barge-based pile driving equipment. The cell is then filled to 
design elevations with the earthen material, allowing the tail wall 
extensions to be installed with

[[Page 18495]]

land-based equipment. The dock face will be constructed in areas that 
are completely ``submerged'' (below low tide). Primary tail walls are 
installed in areas that are below low tide and in areas that are 
tidally influenced or ``intertidal'' (in-water during high tide and out 
of the water during low tide), and areas completely out-of water. Only 
driving piles installed in-water in the submerged and intertidal zones 
has the potential for impacting marine mammals.
    Two main methods used to install piles are impact and vibratory 
pile driving. An impact hammer is a large metal ram that is usually 
attached to a crane. A vertical support holds the pile in place and the 
ram is dropped or forced downward. The energy is then transferred to 
the pile which is driven into the seabed. The ram is typically lifted 
by mechanical, air steam, diesel, or hydraulic power sources. The POA/
MARAD have indicated that an impact hammer similar to Delmag D30-42 
diesel, 13,751 lb hammer with a maximum rated energy of 101 kilojoules 
(kj) will likely be used; however, this may be slightly altered based 
on the contractor. Driving piles using an impact hammer generally 
results in the greatest noise production; however, this noise is not 
constant and is considered as a ``multiple pulse'' source by NMFS. 
NMFS' current acoustic threshold for pulsed sounds (e.g., impact pile 
driving) is 180 and 190dB re 1 microPa for Level A harassment of 
cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, and 160 dB re 1 microPa for 
Level B harassment.
    Vibratory hammers install piles by applying a rapidly alternating 
force to the pile by rotating eccentric weights about shafts, resulting 
in a downward vibratory force on the pile. Vibratory hammers are 
attached to the pile head with a clamp and are usually hydraulically 
powered. The vertical vibration in the pile disturbs or ``liquifies'' 
the soil next to the pile causing the soil particles to lose their 
frictional grip on the pile. The pile moves downward under its own 
weight plus the weight of the hammer. This method is very effective for 
non-displacement piles such as sheet piles, H-beams, and open-end pile 
or caissons. NMFS has established a 180/190dB threshold for Level A 
harassment; however, no Level B threshold is currently implemented 
across the board due to the immense variability in acoustic behavioral 
studies. In the 2008 IHA, NMFS established a threshold of 120dB for 
vibratory pile driving; however, acoustic studies in Knik Arm provide 
overwhelming evidence that background levels around the POA are 
consistently at or above this level, in absence of POA related 
construction. Therefore, NMFS proposes to implement a 125dB threshold 
for Level B harassment for vibratory pile driving.
    The type of hammer used depends on subsurface conditions and the 
effort required to advance the sheet pile to final elevation. The 
difference between the top of adjacent sheets can be no more than 5 
feet at any time. This means that the sheets will be methodically 
driven in a stair-step pattern and the hammer will move back and forth 
along the cell until all sheets are driven to depth. This stair-step 
driving pattern results in short periods of driving. For the vibratory 
hammer, driving is in progress from less than 1 to approximately 3 
minutes followed by a minimum 1- to 5-minute period with no driving, 
while the vibratory hammer is moved and reset. When the impact hammer 
is being used, driving takes place from less than 1 to 20 minutes, 
followed by a period of no driving, while the hammer is moved and reset 
(between 1 and 15 minutes). Where driving conditions allow, two or 
three adjacent sheet piles may be driven simultaneously (the grips on 
the vibratory hammer allow one to three sheets to be driven at a time). 
Actual driving time is determined by local soil conditions. The 
estimated number of pile driving hours, by method, per year is outlined 
in Table 1. The POA/MARAD estimate that vibratory pile driving will be 
the main method of pile installation (75 percent of the time) but may 
use impact pile driving when substrate is too difficult for a vibratory 
hammer (25 percent of the time). The POA/MARAD's USACE permit and 
current IHA require that all piles be driven with the vibratory hammer 
and only use the impact hammer when vibratory methods are not 
sufficient to achieve proper depth.

     Table 1: Pile driving location, timeline, and estimated hours for the Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal
                                             Redevelopment Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Hours of       Hours of
       Year                  Location                Pile Type          Number of   Vibratory Pile   Impact Pile
                                                                          Piles         Driving        Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009                          Barge Berth             fender pile            11             8              3
                          North Extension                       OCSP      4,106           496            235
                                                   temporary pile           268            17              0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           OCSP
                                                                                                    temporary
                                                                                                        pile
                                                                                                    fender pile
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18496]]

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

Demolition of the Existing Dock

    Demolition of the existing, active dock is currently scheduled in 
two phases to begin in 2010 and could continue intermittently through 
2013, depending on the demolition approach and sequencing selected. 
Phase 1 of dock demolition, scheduled for 2010/2011, will focus on the 
northern portion of the existing dock (approximately 175,000 sq ft) and 
includes Terminals 2 and 3. Phase 2 would include the southern portion 
of the dock (approximately 225,000 sq ft) which is scheduled for 
demolition during 2011/2012. Phase 2 includes Terminal 1 and the 
petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) Terminal 1 and 2. The existing 
dock is inside the footprint of the planned MTRP; therefore, all 
concrete debris from demolition would be in areas already planned to be 
filled in during the construction of the new dock. All demolition 
activities would be subject to appropriate marine mammal mitigation 
measures (see Mitigation section).
    The existing dock encompasses approximately 400,000 sq ft of 
surface area and is comprised of an 18 to 24-inch thick steel 
reinforced concrete deck supported by over 4,000 steel piles. Select 
structural portions of the concrete deck are up to 3\1/2\ to 4 feet 
thick. Pile diameters range from 24 to 48 inches with a wall thickness 
of 7/16 inch and are filled with gravel. The existing dock structure 
includes three obsolete container cranes, a three-story combination 
administration building and warehouse at the southern portion of the 
dock, steel trestles, catwalks, fuel piping, and miscellaneous utility 
appurtenances. POA expansion activities will include the demolition of 
the existing dock structure to allow the placement of gravel fill to 
extend the functional wharf line approximately 400 feet beyond the 
existing dock face.
    The Port submitted a demolition plan to NMFS that outlines three 
possible methods for demolition and mitigation measures for each 
option. These include (1) in-water demolition by mechanical means using 
chipping hammers, (2) out-of-water demolition using mechanical means 
and explosives, and (3) out-of-water demolition by mechanical means 
only. Demolition approaches for removal of the existing dock structures 
were reviewed with regard to technical feasibility, cost, and ability 
to minimize Level B harassment takes of marine mammals. Although the 
most economical and fastest approach includes combining in-water 
mechanical means and blasting during winter months, the potential 
adverse effects to marine mammals of blasting in-water would 
necessitate extensive mitigation. Therefore, in-water blasting has been 
eliminated from further consideration.
    The specific method of choice cannot be determined at this time due 
to the need for flexibility in the construction bidding process and to 
facilitate integration of the demolition work into the other components 
of the MTRP, therefore, all three methods are proposed with 
appropriate, respective mitigation. A detailed description of 
methodology can be found in the POA/MARAD's Demolition Plan posted on 
the NMFS website listed above (see ADDRESSES) and are summarized here.

In-Water Demolition by Mechanical Means Only- Option 1

    Option 1, dock demolition by mechanical means, requires breaking or 
sawing the existing concrete away from the steel support structure and 
cutting or breaking the steel piles in summer and winter. Concrete 
demolition would be accomplished using hydraulic chipping hammers, 
concrete cutter jaws and crushers, and shears mounted to large tracked 
excavators. Additional equipment would be used to grab, cut, or load 
salvaged steel during demolition activities. Demolition of the 
reinforced concrete deck would be performed by excavators working from 
the surface of the deck. Large excavators with hydraulic hammers or 
concrete jaws would chip or break the concrete away from the steel 
support structure and internal reinforcing steel. The concrete would be 
broken into small pieces and dropped by gravity to the sea floor below, 
well within the final MTRP footprint. The concrete debris on the sea 
floor would be encapsulated with clean fill material and left in place. 
Alternately, a subcontractor may choose to saw cut the concrete deck 
into sections and use cranes or large excavators to remove the sections 
and transport them to shore for use as aggregate elsewhere in the MTRP. 
Deck demolition work would begin at the furthest point (waterside) 
moving toward the shore, and then along access trestles until the final 
demolition areas are accessible from land. Metal reinforcing steel 
debris would be segregated and removed with additional excavators and 
loaded into trucks for removal and recycling. The concrete deck 
demolition and salvaging of reinforcing steel could occur during any 
tidal stage. Although this option is considered ``in-water,'' the 
chipping hammer would not operate beneath the water's surface as the 
deck of the dock is not below water during any tidal stage.
    Steel piles would be cut or broken using heavy equipment as the 
concrete deck is removed or additional clean granular fill may be 
placed in the dock area, if necessary, to allow equipment access to 
remove the remaining steel piles from below the dock. During lower 
tides the steel piles would be cut using large track mounted excavators 
with shear attachments or simply bent and broken at least 10 feet below 
finish grade using excavators with buckets. An alternate access for 
removal of the steel pile would require use of a tug and barge to 
approach from the waterside and remove the steel pile after the deck 
demolition is complete. Salvaged portions of the piles would be removed 
for recycling. The concrete debris and remaining portions of steel pile 
would later be encapsulated with clean fill during the construction of 
the expanded wharf.
    Option 1 could be accomplished either in the winter or in the 
summer, but not both, with demolition during the winter being the 
preferred option. Total demolition activities for Phase 1 of this 
option (northern portion) are anticipated to continue for

[[Page 18497]]

approximately 960 hours (60 hours/week x 16 weeks). Demolition of Phase 
2 structures (southern portion) is anticipated to take approximately 
1,320 hours (60 hours/week x 22 weeks). Concrete demolition activities 
would be conducted continuously throughout each day; however, steel 
pile demolition may be limited to low tide cycles for ground access. It 
is assumed that both portions of work would be performed concurrently, 
although a portion of the concrete deck must be demolished before steel 
pile demolition can begin, and steel pile demolition may be limited to 
low tide intervals.
    If Option 1 is chosen, harassment to marine mammals could occur 
from chipping hammers transmitting sound into the water through the 
steel piles. Chipping is similar to vibratory pile driving in terms of 
sound type (i.e., non-pulse), but these hammers operate at 19% less 
horsepower (i.e., lower energy) than the vibratory hammer and therefore 
are quieter. In addition, because of the considerable structural mass 
of concrete that the vibrations would pass through prior to reaching 
the water, the energy is expected to attenuate to a minimal level. 
Other cutting tools, such as shears and cutter jaws, operate in short 
duration at low energy, and do not impart energy directly to the water 
column or sea floor. Despite demolition activities being quieter than 
pile driving, the POA/MARAD have proposed to implement the same 
harassment and safety zones as vibratory pile driving.

Out-of-Water Demolition by Mechanical and Blasting Means- Option 2

    Option 2 is comprised of two parts: (1) construct a dike (which 
acts like a cofferdam) around the existing dock during the summer; and 
(2) demolish the dock in the winter. The construction of a granular 
fill dike along the outer limits of the proposed POA expansion area 
would isolate the existing dock from marine waters allowing demolition 
to be accomplished out-of-water with a 300-foot land barrier to 
demolition activities. The dike constructed would be inside the 
footprint of the area already planned and permitted to be filled in 
with soil to build the future new dock. The sequence of the filling 
operations would simply be modified to construct the dike first, 
demolish the dock, and then complete the remainder of the fill. Dike 
construction would not result in any additional dewatering or habitat 
loss.
    De-watered dikes/cofferdams represent the most effective way of 
reducing sound created by impact pile-driving into the water column 
because the pile is completely decoupled from the surrounding water 
column. Phase 1 dike construction would begin in the spring to early 
summer 2011; Phase 2 dike construction would begin in spring or summer 
2012.
    This option would require the construction of approximately 2,600 
linear feet (LF) of granular fill dike prior to Phase 1 demolition and 
approximately 2,300 LF prior to Phase 2. The dike would be constructed 
to an elevation above the highest anticipated tide elevation, would be 
up to 100 feet wide at the top with approximately 2:1 side slopes. The 
dike would be constructed of clean granular fill placed by off-road 
dump trucks and bulldozers and compacted with vibratory rollers, 
similar to fill activities currently under way. After completion of the 
dike the contained water will be removed to a depth sufficient to 
access the limits of the demolition area from below. The proposed dike 
would be constructed in accordance with current permit conditions with 
regard to fish protection and provide fish escapement and/or rescue and 
release from entrapment. Summer construction of the dike would be 
necessary for proper fill placement and compaction and is anticipated 
to take approximately five months. After dike completion, the dock will 
be set back approximately 300 feet inland from the water line.
    Once the dike is completely constructed to accommodate a specific 
phase of demolition, the applicable concrete deck structure would then 
be demolished or partly demolished in sections using precision charges 
(blasting) to break or loosen the concrete. Blasting would expedite the 
demolition of the concrete structure and will allow for easier handling 
and removal of concrete and steel debris using mechanical equipment 
such as track mounted excavators and dump trucks working from an 
adjacent section of the deck structure or from below.
    Blasting would be out-of-water and entail a series of controlled 
events or shots to demolish the deck in a predetermined sequence of 
sections. It is anticipated that the dock would be segregated into 
approximately 30 linear foot sections and that there will be one 
blasting event for each section (i.e., 30 blasting events total). Each 
section would be broken up by a single shot event comprised of 
approximately 150 to 300 charges depending on the size of the section. 
The section would be prepared by drilling a series of 1-1/4 to 3-inch 
holes in a gridlike fashion throughout the section footprint. Grid 
spacing will vary from 2 to 6 feet based on location and concrete 
thickness. An explosive charge would be placed in each hole, wired to 
the detonator and covered. Each hole would contain 1/2 to 1 pound (lb) 
of explosive (no more than 1 lb of explosive would be used for each 
hole). Additionally, no more than 1 lb of explosives would be detonated 
within an 8 millisecond (ms) time period.
    On average, there would be one blasting event per day. Each blast 
is expected to last no more than 6 seconds. Between 50 and 75 blasting 
events are estimated for each demolition phase. The duration for 
mechanical means of demolition of concrete, reinforcing steel and pile, 
and salvaging is anticipated to be 720 hours (six 10-hour days for 3 
months) for Phase 1 and 840 hours (six 10-hour days for 3.5 months) for 
Phase 2. Therefore, using 75 blasts for six-second durations, each 
phase of demolition would include up to 450 seconds (7.5 minutes) of 
blasting over a 3 to 3.5 month period of time (Phase 1 and Phase 2, 
respectively).
    Noise generated at the immediate blast source during dock 
demolition activities is anticipated to be no greater than 110 dBA in 
air. This sound level is based upon the estimated charge size and 
configuration discussed above. The impulse sound is expected to 
dissipate rapidly from the source and all noise generated from blasting 
activities will conform to the City of Anchorage Noise Control 
Ordinance (see Appendix B in Demolition Plan). The Anchorage Noise 
Control Ordinance allows 100, 10, and 1 impulses (blast events) to 
sound limits of 125, 135, and 145 dBA, respectively, during a 24-hour 
period. Section 6.2.2 of the demolition plan discusses the anticipated 
work durations.
    As standard blasting contractor practice, prior to the commencement 
of blast demolition, a controlled test blast will be performed on a 
portion (approximately 1/8) of the first section to verify the blast 
design and to monitor ground vibration, air overpressure, and water 
overpressure. Three hydrophones would be used to measure water 
overpressures outside of the dike structure and three geophones would 
be used to measure air overpressure along the mainland. Data obtained 
from the test blast will be extrapolated to model a full section blast. 
If data from the test blast indicate a potential for noncompliance, the 
blast design would be modified and a new test blast would be performed. 
Data will also be collected during each section blast to verify 
conformance with all applicable sound and air overpressure requirements 
and to determine if demolition activities require modification. All 
blasting activities

[[Page 18498]]

would follow the procedures of an approved blasting plan, the 
applicable marine mammal harassment mitigation requirements, and the 
requirements of a health and safety plan outlining the specific 
requirements for notifying proper authorities, proper signage and 
safety equipment to be used, personal protective equipment, aircraft, 
vehicle and pedestrian control, and pre-blast communication. If any 
marine mammals are sighted within the area of the POA, blasting would 
be suspended (see Mitigation section); therefore, no marine mammals 
would be harassed from blasting.
    After a portion of the concrete deck is fully removed from the 
steel support piles, an excavator with a bucket and thumb or shear 
attachment would break or cut and remove the piles to a point at least 
10 feet below the design finish grade in the area of the existing dock. 
The removed portion of each pile would be salvaged for recycling and 
the remaining portion would be left in place and encapsulated in fill. 
For safety reasons, blasting would not occur at the same time as the 
mechanical salvaging or pile driving work.

Out-of-Water Demolition by Mechanical Means Only- Option 3

    Option 3 is similar to Option 2, except that blasting would not be 
a means used for demolition. Option 3 is comprised of two phases: (1) 
construct a dike around the existing dock in the summer; and (2) 
demolish the dock in the winter. Total demolition activities for Phase 
1 and Phase 2 would be anticipated to continue for the same time as 
Option 1 (i.e., 960 and 1,320 hours, respectively). Dike construction 
for Option 3 would follow the same process described in Option 2 above. 
All mechanical activities (e.g., chipping) would be done out-of-water 
with a 300 ft. land barrier between the dock and the water; therefore, 
this method of dock demolition is not likely to release noise into the 
marine environment above NMFS harassment threshold levels.

Other Activities

    The following activities are not expected to harass marine mammals 
as explained later in this document (see Effects to Marine Mammals 
section) but are part of the MTRP. Public comments received during the 
30-day Federal Register comment period for the 2008 IHA and the notice 
of receipt of application for LOAs addressed these activities and 
therefore they are described here.
Dredging
    In-water construction dredging is performed within the footprint of 
the OCSP structure prior to pile driving to remove soft sediments and 
provide a sound foundation for the steel retaining structure and fill. 
In some areas, additional construction dredging may be completed as 
needed to improve conditions for pile driving associated with 
installation of OCSP. Dredged materials will be transported 
approximately 3,000 ft offshore to the authorized disposal site 
currently used by USACE for harbor maintenance dredging. Dredged areas 
will be filled with clean granular fill using a barge or land-based 
methods within approximately seven days of dredging to prevent in-fill 
of the dredged areas with soft sediments. Construction dredge equipment 
will typically be standard-size, barge mounted, clamshell or hydraulic 
dipper dredge, with tugboat support for maneuvering and placement, and 
another barge and tugboat to transport dredged material to the disposal 
site. Alternative equipment may include a cutter-head hopper dredge. In 
2006, NMFS determined that dredging associated with the MTRP did not 
warrant an incidental take authorization provided the POA/MARAD follow 
certain operational procedures.
    Harbor dredging for ship navigation and channel maintenance located 
outside the construction footprint is completed by separate federal 
action (by USACE). The USACE Alaska District is authorized by Congress 
with federal oversight to maintain navigable conditions and continuous 
ship access to the POA at a nominal depth of -35 Mean Lower Low Water 
(MLLW) (35 ft below elevation zero); harbor maintenance dredging occurs 
regularly during the ice free season on a daily basis. USACE has also 
been authorized by Congress to widen the harbor area during POA 
construction to coincide with interim ship movements, to accommodate 
navigation at added berths, and deepen the harbor to -45 MLLW to 
accommodate larger vessels with deeper drafts. The estimated number of 
construction dredging hours, days and amount of cubic yards (cy) moved 
per year can be found in Section 2 of the application. USACE harbor 
maintenance dredging, transitional dredging, and harbor deepening are 
separate federal actions and are not part of this rulemaking; however, 
NMFS did address this federal action as part of its effects analysis 
under the NEPA.
Placement of Fill Material
    Approximately 9.5 million cy of suitably engineered and clean 
granular fill and common fill material would be placed behind vertical 
steel or rock-retaining features. The POA and MARAD, in cooperation 
with the adjacent Eglin Air Force Base (EAFB), would continue to use 
only certified clean government-furnished fill material from two borrow 
sites on EAFB. Some fill material may also be obtained from existing 
commercial sources as needed. Fill extraction, transport, off-loading, 
and final placement activities will be monitored and inspected to 
verify proper adherence to detailed specifications and permit 
requirements. Fill material is screened to ensure compliance with 
stringent specifications for grain size and samples are laboratory 
tested to ensure all material placed is contaminant-free and certified 
as fully suitable for the intended purpose. Fill extraction and 
transport operations will be ongoing throughout the five-year 
construction period.
    Common fill is placed in de-watered conditions where and when 
possible. Off-road trucks and bulldozers will deposit and spread the 
fill material up to and behind the OCSP face wall. Some fill may be 
imported from other sources, transported over water, and placed in-
water at the MTRP site by dump scows (barges capable of discharging 
fill material through the bottom of the vessel). Following placement of 
fill, a land-based vibratory probe, constructed from an H-pile, and a 
vibratory pile driving hammer will be used to densify deep soils. The 
probe is driven into the fill at evenly spaced locations to vibrate and 
consolidate deep fill. Fill material placed above elevation +30 ft will 
be compacted in layers while being placed using conventional sheepsfoot 
or vibratory compaction equipment. Compaction and consolidation 
equipment will be used intermittently. Large armor rock is placed in 
some areas for permanent erosion control. Liner rock will be placed on 
the temporary slopes exposed to tide and wave action at the end of 
interim construction phases for erosion protection. As with dredging, 
in 2006, NMFS determined that fill compaction and rock placement would 
not result in harassment to marine mammals if certain operational 
procedures were met; therefore, an incidental take authorization was 
not warranted.
Action Area
    Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary that flows into the Gulf of 
Alaska, is roughly 20,000 km2, has 1,350 km of coastline

[[Page 18499]]

(Rugh et al. 2000), and is generally divided into upper and lower 
regions by the East and West Forelands. Cook Inlet is comprised of 
large expanses of glacial flour deposits and extensive tidal mudflats 
and has an average depth of approximately 100 m. NMFS' Final Cook Inlet 
Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (SEIS) provides a detailed description of Cook Inlet's 
climate, geology, water quality, and physical properties and is 
incorporated herein by reference. In summary, Cook Inlet is a 
seismically active region susceptible to earthquakes with magnitudes 
6.0 to 8.8; has some of the highest tides in North America, which are 
the driving force of surface circulation; and contains substantial 
quantities of mineral resources, including coal, oil, and natural gas. 
During winter months, sea, beach, and river ice are dominant physical 
forces within Cook Inlet. In upper Cook Inlet, sea ice generally forms 
in October to November, developing through February or March.
    Northern Cook Inlet bifurcates into Knik Arm to the north and 
Turnagain Arm to the east. Knik Arm is generally considered to begin at 
Point Woronzof, 7.4 km southwest of the POA. From Point Woronzof, Knik 
Arm extends more than 48 km in a north-northeasterly direction to the 
mouths of the Matanuska and Knik Rivers. Over 90 percent of Knik Arm 
remains undeveloped and where development is prevalent, it is 
relatively confined to the lower portion of Knik Arm. The primary 
concern for development, as stated in the NMFS 2008 Conservation Plan 
for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) (herein after 
``Conservation Plan''), is that it may restrict passage of beluga 
whales along Knik Arm to important feeding areas. The MTRP footprint is 
restricted to the eastern side of Knik Arm with the new dock extending 
approximately 400 m seaward of the current dock.
    Point MacKenzie, is located on the west side of Knik Arm 
approximately 6.7 km from the POA. At Cairn Point, located just north 
of the POA, Knik Arm narrows to about 2.4 km before widening to as much 
as 8 km at the tidal flats northwest of Eagle Bay at the mouth of Eagle 
River. Cairn Point is the selected marine mammal monitoring site for an 
independent observer team to monitor marine mammals during the MTRP due 
to its elevation above construction activities and uninterrupted 
northern and southern view of Knik Arm. This monitoring station is 
located on EAFB; a long-term access agreement is in place with the 
military authorizing the station.
    Knik Arm consists of narrow channels flanked by large shallow tidal 
flats composed of sand, mud, or gravel, making it a poor acoustic 
environment (i.e., sound does not propagate far). Tides are 
semidiurnal, with two unequal high and low tides per tidal day (tidal 
day = 24 hours 50 minutes). Because of Knik Arm's predominantly shallow 
depths and narrow widths, tides near Anchorage are greater than in the 
main body of Cook Inlet. The tides at Anchorage can range about 40 ft, 
with an extreme observed high water of +34.6 ft and an extreme observed 
low water of -6.4 ft MLLW (NOAA 2008). Beluga whale movement is 
strongly correlated with the tides. Maximum current speeds in Knik Arm, 
observed during spring ebb tide, exceed 7 knots (12 ft/second), some of 
the fastest in the world.
    Approximately 60 percent of Knik Arm is exposed at MLLW. The 
intertidal areas of Knik Arm are mudflats, both vegetated and 
unvegetated, which primarily consist of fine, silt-size glacial flour. 
Freshwater sources often are glacially born waters, which carry high-
suspended sediment loads, as well as a variety of metals such as zinc, 
barium, mercury, and cadmium. Surface waters in Cook Inlet typically 
carry high silt and sediment loads, particularly during summer, making 
Knik Arm an extremely silty, turbid waterbody with low visibility 
through the water column. The Matanuska and Knik Rivers contribute the 
majority of fresh water and suspended sediment into the Knik Arm during 
summer months. Smaller rivers and creeks also enter along the sides of 
Knik Arm. Ship Creek, stocked with salmon twice each summer, serves as 
an important recreational fishing resource. Ship Creek flows into Knik 
Arm through the Anchorage industrial area; the mouth is approximately 
0.6 km south of the southern end of the MTRP footprint and abuts the 
Flint Hills railroad area where a sheet pile wall currently exists.
    There are prevalent, shallow intertidal and subtidal habitats 
directly surrounding the POA. Habitat surveys completed to date 
indicate that the area immediately around the POA supports a wide 
diversity of marine and anadromous fish species and provides migration, 
rearing, and foraging habitat. Recent surveys indicate that shallow 
waters along the tidal flats of Knik Arm are used by all five species 
of Pacific salmon, saffron cod, and a variety of prey species such as 
eulachon and longfin smelt (Pentec, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b; 
Moulton, 1997). Many of these species are prone to recreational and 
commercial sport fishing and serve as prey for larger fish and marine 
mammals.
    Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is located within the action area. EFH 
means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The NMFS and the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council identified EFH in upper Cook Inlet 
for anadromous Pacific salmon; however, no salmon species that would be 
adversely affected by the MTRP are listed under the ESA. Designated EFH 
present in the vicinity of the POA is for both juvenile and adult life 
stages of Pacific cod, walleye pollock, sculpins, and eulachon (also 
called hooligan and candlefish). In addition, all streams, lakes, 
ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies that currently support or 
historically supported anadromous fish species (e.g., salmon) are 
considered freshwater EFH. Marine EFH for salmon fisheries in Alaska 
include all estuarine and marine areas utilized by Pacific salmon of 
Alaska origin, extending from the influence of tidewater and tidally 
submerged habitats to the limits of the U.S. Exclusion Economic Zone 
(EEZ). Details of EFH and the life stage of these species can be found 
in at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm. The NMFS AKR Habitat 
Conservation Division provided numerous conservation mitigation 
recommendations during the USACE's permit scoping process authorizing 
MTRP construction activities. In addition, as required by the USACE 
permit, NMFS will be involved with all habitat related compensatory 
restoration and conservation projects (see Impacts to Habitat section).

Acoustic Environment

    Sound dissipates more rapidly in shallow waters and over soft 
bottoms (sand and mud). Much of upper Cook Inlet is characterized by 
its shallow depth and sand/mud bottoms, thereby making it a poor 
acoustic environment. Strong currents and winds in Knik Arm elevate 
ambient sound level compared to other portions of Cook Inlet. The 
development of Anchorage, an industrialized area, further increases 
background levels near the POA from commercial and recreation vessels, 
commercial, recreational and military air traffic, and airborne noise 
related to urbanized areas. For purposes of this document, all sound 
levels in this notice are provided as root mean square (rms) values and 
referenced to 1 microPa, unless otherwise noted.
    Underwater acoustical studies conducted in Knik Arm reveal that the 
area around the POA is a noisy

[[Page 18500]]

environment, with average ambient sound levels near or above 120 dB 
(Blackwell and Greene 2002; Blackwell 2005; URS 2007; Science Fishery 
Systems 2009). Tides and wind are the most influential in creating high 
ambient levels, with vessel and air traffic further increasing 
underwater sound levels. The lower range of broadband (10 to 10,000 
Hertz [Hz]) background sound levels, in the absence of pile driving, 
obtained during underwater measurements at Port MacKenzie, ranged from 
115 dB to 133 dB (Blackwell 2005). Background sound levels in the 
absence of pile driving measured during the 2007 acoustic study at the 
MTRP site resulted in most sound pressure levels (SPLs) exceeding 120 
dB with a maximum of 135 dB (URS 2007). Finally, a number of background 
noise recordings (n=25) were made during the 2008 acoustic study at the 
POA. Measurements ranged from 120 to 150 dB with a mean of 124 dB 
(Scientific Fisheries Systems, 2009). These measurements were not 
devoid of industrial sounds from maritime operations or on-going USACE 
maintenance dredging but pile driving from construction was not 
underway at the time of the study. Background levels were highest 
during the rising tide and during strong winds, especially when high 
winds generated breaking waves. Scientific Fisheries Systems (2009) 
recorded many instances of high background noise levels when wind 
speeds were at or above 3m/sec. Based on these data, noise levels 
around the POA are consistently near or above 120 dB with variability 
strongly correlated to wind and tide.
Marine Mammals Affected by the MTRP
    Marine mammals potentially affected by the MTRP are thoroughly 
described in the proposed and final Federal Register notices for the 
2008 IHA (73 FR 14443, March 18, 2007 and 73 FR 41318, July 15, 2008, 
respectively) and NMFS' 2008 EA. In summary, Cook Inlet is utilized by 
several species of marine mammals; however, most of these are confined 
to the lower Inlet and would not be affected by the MTRP. In Knik Arm, 
the Cook Inlet beluga whale is by far the most abundant marine mammal, 
especially during the non-winter months. Harbor seals, harbor porpoise, 
and killer whales are also found in the Inlet but they do not display a 
regular presence in Knik Arm. While Steller's sea lions (Eumetopias 
jubatus) are present in lower Cook Inlet, sightings in upper Cook Inlet 
are rare and there has never been a sighting reported in Knik Arm. 
Since 1999, only 4 Steller's sea lions have been reported in upper Cook 
Inlet. Two Steller's sea lions were sighted at the mouth of the Susitna 
River in 1999 and two adults were near the same locating in 2005 (B. 
Mahoney, pers. comm, June 20, 2008). Therefore, Steller's sea lions are 
not anticipated to be affected by the MTRP and will not be considered 
further. If, by chance, a marine mammal not authorized to be harassed 
is seen around the construction area, shut down would be required so as 
to avoid unlawful take.

Beluga Whales

Status and Abundance

    Beluga whales are circumpolar in distribution and occur in 
seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters. Beluga whales occur 
in marine waters around most of Alaska, except the Southeast panhandle 
region and the Aleutian Islands. This species comprises five distinct 
stocks: Beaufort Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, eastern Bering Sea, Bristol 
Bay, and Cook Inlet (Hill and DeMaster, 1998). Of these, the Cook Inlet 
stock is the only stock that would be affected by the MTRP. This stock 
is considered to be the most isolated, based on the degree of genetic 
differentiation between it and the four other stocks (O=Corry-Crowe et 
al., 1997), suggesting the Alaska Peninsula may be an effective barrier 
to genetic exchange (Hobbs et al., 2006). Also supporting this find, is 
the lack of observations of beluga whales along the southern side of 
the Alaska Peninsula (Laidre et al., 2000). Murray and Fay (1979) 
postulated that this stock has been isolated for several thousand 
years, an idea which has since been corroborated by genetic data 
(O=Corry-Crowe et al., 1997).
    The Cook Inlet beluga whale population has declined significantly 
over the years. Historical data suggest this population once numbered 
around 1,300 (Calkins 1989). NMFS systematic aerial surveys documented 
a decline in abundance of nearly 50 percent between 1994 (653 whales) 
and 2008 (375 whales). Aerial annual abundance surveys conducted each 
June/July from 1999 to 2008 have resulted in abundance estimates of 
367, 435, 386, 313, 357, 366, 278, 302, 375, and 375 whales for each 
year, respectively (Hobbs et al., 2000; Rugh et. al., 2005; NMFS, 
unpubl. data). These estimates result in an overall decline of the 
population of 1.5 percent from 1999 to 2008 (note: 1999 was the first 
year beluga harvest was regulated).
    The Cook Inlet beluga whale was proposed for listing as endangered 
under the ESA on April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19854). On October 22, 2008, 
NMFS issued a final rule listing this population as endangered under 
the ESA (73 FR 69219). This listing status became effective on December 
22, 2008. Other major documents NMFS has recently produced on this 
species include the Conservation Plan and the Final Subsistence Harvest 
SEIS referenced earlier in this document. These documents can be found 
at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga.htm.

Distribution

    Beluga whales generally occur in shallow, coastal waters, and while 
some populations make long seasonal migrations, Cook Inlet beluga 
whales reside in Cook Inlet year round. Data from satellite tagged 
whales documented that beluga whales concentrate in the upper Inlet at 
rivers and bays in the summer and fall, with a tendency to disperse 
offshore and move to mid-Inlet waters in the winter. Local knowledge 
and other historical evidence show that prior to the 1990s belugas were 
regularly seen in central and lower Cook Inlet waters, both nearshore 
and offshore (Calkins, 1983; Huntington 2000; Rugh et al., 2000). 
However, since the mid 1990s, distribution during the summer is 
confined to the upper Inlet with no sightings in the mid and lower 
Inlet. This constriction is likely a function of a reduced population 
seeking the highest quality habitat that offers the most abundant prey, 
most favorable feeding topography, the best calving areas, and the best 
protection from killer whale predation.
    From April through November whales concentrate at river mouths and 
tidal flat areas, moving in and out with the tides (Rugh et al., 2000). 
In Knik Arm, beluga whales generally are observed arriving in May and 
often use the area all summer, feeding on the various salmon runs and 
moving with the tides. There is more intensive use of Knik Arm in 
August and through the fall, coinciding with the coho run. During high 
tides, beluga whales are generally concentrated around prime feeding 
habitats (also known as ``hotspots'') in the upper reaches of the Arm, 
an area unaffected by the MTRP. They often retreat to the lower portion 
of Knik Arm during low tides gathering in Eagle Bay and elsewhere on 
the east side of Knik Arm (approximately 15 miles north of Anchorage) 
and sometimes in Goose Bay on the west side of Knik Arm (across from 
Eagle Bay). Beluga whales will often travel between these two areas 
(upper reaches of the Arm and the Bays) with the tide daily for a 
season

[[Page 18501]]

before traveling farther south past Anchorage and out of Knik Arm.
    Prey availability likely has the strongest influence on the 
distribution and relative abundance of beluga whales in Cook Inlet 
(Moore et al., 2000). There is repeated use of several areas of the 
upper Inlet for summer and fall feeding by beluga whales. The primary 
``hotspots'' for beluga feeding areas include the Big and Little 
Susitna Rivers, Eagle Bay to Eklutna River, Ivan Slough, Theodore 
River, Lewis River, and Chickaloon River and Bay. Only one hotspot, 
Eagle Bay to Eklutna River, is located in Knik Arm approximately 15 
miles north of the POA. Many of these areas are also popular fishing 
locations for humans. Beluga whales exhibit high site fidelity and may 
persist in an area with fluctuating fish runs or may tolerate certain 
levels of disturbance from boats or other anthropogenic activities in 
order to feed.

Feeding

    Beluga whales are opportunistic feeders known to prey on a wide 
variety of animals. They eat octopus, squid, crabs, shrimp, clams, 
mussels, snails, sandworms, and fish such as capelin, cod, herring, 
smelt, flounder, sole, sculpin, lamprey, lingcod and salmon (Perez 
1990; Haley 1986; Klinkhart 1966). Natives also report that Cook Inlet 
beluga whales feed on freshwater fish: trout, whitefish, northern pike, 
and grayling (Huntington, 2000), and tomcod during the spring (Fay et 
al., 1984). While beluga whales feed on a variety of prey, they focus 
on specific species when they are seasonally abundant. Increased 
foraging success results in a thick blubber layer that provides both 
energy and thermal protection. Native hunters in Cook Inlet report that 
beluga whale blubber is thinner in early spring than later in the 
summer. This suggests that their spring feeding in upper Cook Inlet, 
principally on fat-rich fish such as eulachon and salmon, is very 
important to the energetics of these animals. According to the 
Conservation Plan, Knik Arm is an important feeding area for beluga 
whales during much of the summer and fall, especially upper Knik Arm. 
Whales ascend to upper Knik Arm on the flooding tide, feed on salmon, 
then fall back with the outgoing tide to hold in water off and north of 
the Port of Anchorage.
    From late spring and throughout summer most beluga stomachs sampled 
contained Pacific salmon corresponding to the timing of fish runs in 
the area. Anadromous smolt and adult fish concentrate at river mouths 
and adjacent intertidal mudflats (Calkins 1989). Five Pacific salmon 
species: Chinook, pink, coho, sockeye, and chum spawn in rivers 
throughout Cook Inlet (Moulton 1997; Moore et al. 2000). Calkins (1989) 
recovered 13 salmon tags in the stomach of an adult beluga found dead 
in Turnagain Arm. Beluga hunters in Cook Inlet reported one whale 
having 19 adult Chinook salmon in its stomach (Huntington 2000). 
Salmon, overall, represent the highest percent frequency of occurrence 
of the prey species in Cook Inlet beluga stomachs. This suggests that 
their spring feeding in upper Cook Inlet, principally on fat-rich fish 
such as salmon and eulachon, is very important to the energetics of 
these animals.
    In the fall, as anadromous fish runs begin to decline, beluga 
whales return to consume fish species found in nearshore bays and 
estuaries (e.g., cod and bottom fish). Bottom fish include Pacific 
staghorn sculpin, starry flounder, and yellowfin sole. Stomach samples 
from Cook Inlet belugas are not available for winter months (December 
through March), although dive data from belugas tagged with satellite 
transmitters suggest whales feed in deeper waters during winter (Hobbs 
et al. 2005), possibly on such prey species as flatfish, cod, sculpin, 
and pollock.

Hearing

    Beluga whales are characterized as mid-frequency odontocetes but 
are able to hear an unusually wide range of frequencies, covering most 
natural and man-made sounds. The hearing frequency range of this 
species is believed to be between 40 Hz-150 kHz with keen hearing at 
10-100 kHz. Above 100 kHz, sensitivity drops off rapidly (Au, 1993) and 
below 16 kHz the decrease in sensitivity is more gradual at 
approximately 10 dB per octave (White et al., 1978; Awbrey et al., 
1988). Awbrey (1988) measured the low-frequency (i.e., octave intervals 
between 125 Hz and 8 kHz) underwater hearing sensitivity of three 
captive beluga whales in a quiet pool. At 8 kHz, the average hearing 
threshold of the three animals was 65 dB. Below 8 kHz, sensitivity 
decreased at approximately 11 dB per octave. At 125 Hz, the average 
hearing threshold was 120.6 dB (i.e., the received level had to be 
120.6 dB in order for the whale to hear the 125 Hz sound). Average MTRP 
construction related noises range between 0.1 and 15 kHz (see Table 6-2 
in application).

Habitat Classification

    NMFS has characterized beluga whale habitats into three categories, 
Type I-III, based on use and biological importance as part of its 
conservation strategy in the Conservation Plan. This habitat 
designation has been slightly modified from the 2006 Draft Conservation 
Plan, which described four habitat type designations, and is described 
in the 2008 EA. Type I habitat encompasses all of Cook Inlet northeast 
of a line three miles southwest of the Beluga River across to Pt. 
Possession. These areas are full of shallow tidal flats, river mouths 
or estuarine areas, and are important foraging, calving and/or nursery 
habitats. These areas are also important for other biological needs, 
such as molting or predator avoidance. Type I habitat hosts a 
concentrated population of beluga whales from spring to fall. The POA 
and the city of Anchorage are encompassed within the southern boundary 
of Type I habitat. Type II habitat includes areas of less concentrated 
spring and summer use, but known fall and winter use. This habitat is 
based on dispersed fall and winter feeding and transit areas in waters 
where whales typically occur in smaller densities o