Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements Project, 55348-55353 [2018-24064]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55348
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Notices
Dated: October 29, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Discussion of the Methodology
A. Comparisons to Normal Value
1. Determination of Comparison Method
2. Results of the Differential Pricing
Analysis
B. Product Comparisons
C. Export Price and Constructed Export
Price
D. Normal Value
1. Home Market Viability and Selection of
Comparison Market
2. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm’sLength Test
3. Level of Trade
E. Cost of Production Analysis
1. Calculation of COP
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
3. Results of the COP Test
F. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison
Market Prices
G. Calculation of NV Based on CV
H. Currency Conversion
V. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2018–24144 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Estuarine Research Reserve
System
Stewardship Division, Office
for Coastal Management, National
Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of approval for the
Jacques Cousteau, New Jersey National
Estuarine Research Reserve
Management Plan revision.
AGENCY:
Under applicable Federal
regulations, notice is hereby given that
the Stewardship Division, Office for
Coastal Management, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce approves the
revised Management Plan for the
Jacques Cousteau, New Jersey National
Estuarine Research Reserve
Management Plan. In accordance with
applicable Federal regulations, the
Jacques Cousteau Reserve revised its
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Nov 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
Management Plan, which will replace
the plan previously approved in 2009.
The revised Management Plan
outlines the administrative structure;
the research/monitoring, stewardship,
education, and training programs of the
Reserve; and the plans for future land
acquisition and facility development to
support Reserve operations.
The Jacques Cousteau Reserve takes
an integrated approach to management,
linking research, education, coastal
training, and stewardship functions.
The Reserve has outlined how it will
manage administration and its core
program providing detailed actions that
will enable it to accomplish specific
goals and objectives. Since the last
management plan, the reserve has:
Developed core programs; expanded
monitoring programs within Jacques
Cousteau and its watershed; enhanced
exhibits and trails; provided technical
assistance to coastal communities
throughout the state of New Jersey,
conducted training workshops;
implemented K–12 education programs;
and built new and innovative
partnerships with local, state, regional,
and U.S. organizations and universities.
On January 9, 2018, NOAA issued a
notice of a thirty day public comment
period for the Jacques Cousteau Reserve
revised plan (83 FR 1027). Responses to
the written and oral comments received,
and an explanation of how comments
were incorporated into the final revised
plan, are available in Appendix D of the
revised plan.
The revised Management Plan will
serve as the guiding document for the
Jacques Cousteau Reserve. View the
Jacques Cousteau Reserve Management
Plan at URL: https://jcnerr.org/JCNERR_
REVISEDMGMTPLAN%202018.
2022.pdf.
The impacts of the revised
management plan have not changed and
the initial Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) prepared at the time of
designation is still valid. NOAA has
made the determination that the
revision of the management plan will
not have a significant effect on the
human environment and therefore
qualifies for a categorical exclusion
under NOAA Administrative Order
216–6. An environmental assessment
will not be prepared.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nina Garfield at (240) 533–0817 or Erica
Seiden at (240) 533–0781 of NOAA’s
National Ocean Service, Stewardship
Division, Office for Coastal
Management, 1305 East-West Highway,
N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: October 25, 2018.
Keelin Kuipers,
Deputy Director, Office for Coastal
Management, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018–24196 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG383
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Gustavus
Ferry Terminal Improvements Project
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental
Harassment Authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take
small numbers of animals, by Level A
and Level B harassment, incidental to
the Gustavus Ferry Terminal
Improvements project in Gustavus,
Alaska
SUMMARY:
The authorization is effective
from December 15, 2018, through
December 14, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob
Pauline, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic
copies of the application, supporting
documents, as well as the issued IHA
may be obtained online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
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
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Notices
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
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 National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA)(Pub. L.
108–136) removed the ‘‘small numbers’’
and ‘‘specified geographical region’’
limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness
activity.’’ The definitions of all
applicable MMPA statutory terms cited
above are included in the relevant
sections below.
History of Request
On July 31, 2015, NMFS received an
application from the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) requesting the take of
marine mammals incidental to
reconstructing the existing Gustavus
Ferry Terminal in Gustavus, Alaska.
NMFS published a notice of proposed
IHA and request for comments in the
Federal Register on June 23, 2016 (81
FR 40852). We subsequently published
the final notice of our issuance of the
IHA on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17209),
making the IHA effective from
December 15, 2017 through December
14, 2018. In-water work associated with
the project was expected to be
completed within the one-year
timeframe of the IHA. The specified
activities were expected to result in the
take of seven species of marine
mammals including harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), Dall’s porpoise
(Phocoenoides dalli), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae), and minke
whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).
On May 8, 2018, ADOT&PF informed
NMFS that work on the project would
be postponed due to design revisions
and local community considerations
and that no work would be completed
under the 2017–2018 IHA. ADOT&PF
requested that a new IHA be issued that
would be effective from December 15,
2018 through December 14, 2019. NMFS
published a notice of a proposed IHA
and request for comments in the Federal
Register on August 9, 2018 (83 FR
39424). Under this IHA, ADOT&PF will
conduct pile driving activities between
the in water work window dates of
March 1 through May 31, 2019, and
September 1 through November 30,
2019. Although there were minor
modifications to the work plan covered
under the issued IHA, the number of
authorized takes remains unchanged
from those listed in the 2017–2018
Authorization.
Description of the Specified Activities
The 2018–2019 IHA covers the same
in-water construction activities as those
covered by the 2017–2018 IHA which
was issued for the modernization of the
Gustavus Ferry Terminal project. Minor
revisions have been made to the number
and types of piles that will be installed
and removed. These revisions were
described by NMFS in a notice of
proposed IHA and request for comments
published in the Federal Register on
August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39424).
Additionally, NMFS refers the reader to
the documents related to the previously
issued 2017–2018 IHA for more detailed
description of the project activities.
These previous documents include the
Federal Register notice of the issuance
of the 2017–2018 IHA for ADOT&PF’s
Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements
project (82 FR 17209; April 10, 2017),
ADOT&PF’s application, the Federal
Register notice of the proposed IHA (81
FR 40852; June 23, 2016) and all
associated references and documents. A
detailed description of the planned
vibratory and impact pile driving
activities at the ferry terminal
improvements project is found in these
documents. The description remains
accurate with the exception of the minor
modifications noted below.
Differences between the 2017–2018
IHA and the issued 2018–2019 IHA are
shown in Table 1. Generally speaking,
pile driving and removal will occur over
the same number of days (maximum of
50) with installation and removal of 16
additional piles over 21 additional
hours for the 2018–2019 IHA. These
changes represent a 3.5 percent increase
in the number of piles installed and a
21.9 percent increase in the number of
piles removed. The duration of impact
driving will remain the same while the
time spent vibratory driving will
increase by 18.4 percent. The additional
time required for vibratory driving is
due to the increase in anticipated
number of piles removed. Note that
these changes will have a nominal
impact on the calculated Level A
harassment isopleths and no effect on
Level B harassment isopleths. Therefore,
the size of the Level A harassment and
Level B harassment zones remains
unchanged.
TABLE 1—GUSTAVUS FERRY PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL SUMMARY
Pile size (Inches)
# of piles—2017–2018 IHA
30 .......................................................................
24 .......................................................................
18 .......................................................................
16 .......................................................................
12.75 ..................................................................
Total installed/total Piles ............................
14 ......................................................................
40 ......................................................................
0 ........................................................................
0 ........................................................................
3 install/16 remove ...........................................
57/73 .................................................................
Driving Time Duration
2017–2018 IHA (hours)
Impact Driving ....................................................
Vibratory Driving ................................................
Total ............................................................
57 ......................................................................
114 ....................................................................
171 ....................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Nov 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55349
# of piles—2018–2019 IHA
18.
34 install/12 remove.
4 remove.
4 install/4 remove.
3 install/9 remove.
59/89.
2018–2019 IHA (hours).
57.
135.
192.
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
55350
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Notices
A description of ADOT&PF’s planned
project is provided in the Federal
Register notice for proposed IHA (83 FR
39424; August 9, 2018). Since that time,
no changes have been made to the
planned activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please
refer to that Federal Register notice and
related documents for the description of
the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA was published in the Federal
Register on August 9, 2018 (83 FR
39424). That notice described
ADOT&PF’s proposed activity, the
marine mammal species that may be
affected by the activity, and the
anticipated effects on marine mammals.
During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received a single
comment letter from the Marine
Mammal Commission (Commission).
Specific comments from the
Commission’s letter and corresponding
responses are provided below.
Comment 1: The Commission wrote
that in the original IHA application
submitted in 2016, ADOT&PF proposed
to use 154.3 decibels (dB) re 1
micropascal (mPa) at 10 meters (m) as
the proxy source level (SL) for vibratory
pile driving of 30-inch steel piles based
on measurement of a single pile
obtained at the ferry terminal in Kake,
Alaska (McGillivray et al. 2015). The
Commission noted that this
measurement is much lower than other
measurements obtained from vibratory
pile driving of 30-in steel piles at other
locations and lower than measurements
obtained from another pile at Kake. The
Commission asserts that the primary
factor affecting the source level is the
sediment composition, which at Kake
consists of organic mud. However,
Starkes and Stutes (2016) stated that
geotechnical reports indicated that
substrates at Kake and Gustavus differ
and that substrates at Gustavus are
composed primarily of sand and silty
sands. The Commission recommended
use of a mean of 166 dB re 1 mPa based
on source levels obtained at other
locations where the substrates are
comprised of sand and silt rather than
157.7 dB re 1 mPa at 10 m NMFS
adopted for Gustavus. The Commission
also recommends that NMFS re-estimate
the extents of the Level A and B
harassment zones accordingly and
increase the numbers of marine
mammal takes appropriately.
NMFS Response: As noted above,
NMFS used a proxy source level of
157.7 dB re 1 mPa for vibratory driving
of 30-in steel piles during the estimated
take analysis used to develop the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Nov 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
original Gustavus IHA. ADOT&PF will
be using the same type of vibratory
hammers at Gustavus as were used at
Kake while the pile types and sizes are
comparable between the two sites.
NMFS does not dispute that the SL used
in the Gustavus analysis is generally
lower than others that have been
recorded across various sites. However,
SLs for similar piles measured at
different locations tend to cover a range
of values. For example, SL
measurements from Kodiak for vibratory
driving of the same size and type of pile
were even lower than those recorded at
Kake, although the researchers
speculated that the low values be due to
the drilling/socketing of piles or
sediment composition at Kodiak (Denes
et al., 2017). For the Gustavus analysis,
NMFS elected to use a value from the
lower end of recorded ranges. In order
to confirm that the SLs adopted by
NMFS are appropriate for use at
Gustavus, NMFS will require ADOT&PF
to conduct sound source verification
(SSV) testing. If the recorded SLs at
Gustavus are appreciably greater than
those measured at Kake, ADOT&PF will
increase the shutdown and harassment
zones as appropriate.
Comment 2: The Commission
recommends that NMFS require
ADOT&PF to use at least three Protected
Species Observers (PSO) to monitor the
full extent of the Level B harassment
zone during all vibratory pile-driving
activities and ensure the numbers of
animals taken are extrapolated to the
full extent of the Level B harassment
zone, if unable to be fully monitored.
NMFS Response: NMFS believes that
the existing Level B harassment zone
can be adequately measured utilizing
only two PSOs. The option of adding
more PSOs was discussed with
ADOT&PF. NMFS suggested that PSOs
could be stationed on vessels or on
nearby islands. However, due to the
frequency, severity and unpredictability
of weather in Icy Passage, ADOT&PF
was reluctant to employ vessels for
monitoring purposes since the safety of
PSOs could be at risk. Additionally,
island-based PSOs could be stranded on
these uninhabited islands overnight, or
longer, if retrieval vessels are unable to
pick up observers due to weather
conditions. NMFS concurred with these
assessments. To estimate the total
number of takes, NMFS will require
ADOT&PF to extrapolate observed take
numbers to cover the entire Level B
harassment zone if portions cannot be
monitored effectively by PSOs.
Comment 3: The Commission
recommends that NMFS (1) increase the
numbers of Level A harassment takes for
harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Steller sea lions based on their
residency patterns, social behavior, and
potential to occur within the various
Level A harassment zones and (2)
reduce the size of the shutdown zone for
Steller sea lions to reduce frequency of
shutdowns.
NMFS Response: NMFS discussed
with ADOT&PF both increasing take of
the species listed above and reducing
the size of the Steller sea lion shutdown
zone. Based on observational data
collected by Gustavus, NMFS and the
applicant believe that the existing take
numbers are adequate. Note that
ADOT&PF is currently required to shut
down at 4 p.m., after which Steller sea
lions are known to follow charter
fishing vessels to the dock.
Additionally, shutdown will occur
when five or more Steller sea lions are
observed following charter fishing
vessels to the dock prior to 4 p.m. These
are the conditions that would most
likely result in take of Seller sea lions.
Given these requirements, ADOT&PF
and NMFS do not believe that the
existing shutdown zone will result in a
high rate of shutdowns.
Comment 4: If NMFS does not follow
the Commission’s recommendations, the
Commission recommends that NMFS
require ADOT&PF to cease its activities
if authorized take limits are met. The
Commission recommends that the
authorization only be revised after a 30day public comment period is afforded
for review of any revisions to the
authorization issued in 2018. The
Commission understands that in certain
circumstances (e.g., unexpected impacts
from El Nin˜o conditions) the numbers of
authorized takes may not be sufficient.
However, the Commission does not
believe those types of unforeseeable
circumstances should not be treated
equally to those which arise from NMFS
failing to authorize adequate numbers of
takes.
NMFS Response: NMFS believes that
the number of takes authorized under
this IHA is adequate to cover the action
planned by ADOT&PF. As is the case for
any IHA, if take numbers for one or
more authorized species are exceeded,
the applicant is required to cease inwater pile driving activities and contact
NMFS. Furthermore, NMFS is requiring
ADOT&PF to conduct SSV testing to
confirm that measured sound source
levels at the action site are similar to the
values that were used to estimate take
as well identify shutdown and
harassment zone sizes. As noted in the
IHA, NMFS will revise shutdown and
harassment zone sizes if necessary
based on SSV testing results without
requiring a 30-day comment period.
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Notices
Comment 5: The Commission had
previously recommended that NMFS
make several general improvements for
pile-driving authorizations. As part of
this comment letter, the Commission
indicated that NMFS should (1)
incorporate the Commission’s various
recommendations into its pile-driving
assessment guidance, (2) finalize that
guidance in the near term, including
compiling source level data into a
central database, and (3) make such
guidance available on NMFS’s
incidental take authorization website.
NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates
the Commission’s interest in improving
pile-driving authorizations. NMFS has
been developing pile-driving guidance
documents that include many of the
Commission’s recommendations. As
soon as draft documents have been
completed, they will be shared with the
Commission. Once the guidance
documents have been finalized, they
will be posted on NMFS’s incidental
take authorization website, as
appropriate.
Comment 6: The Commission
recommends that NMFS require action
proponents to provide proposed
hydroacoustic monitoring plans when
authorization applications are submitted
and make those plans available for
public comment. If such plans are not
provided in a timely manner, at the very
least, NMFS should provide them to the
Commission for review sufficiently in
advance of issuing the final
authorization.
NMFS Response: During the initial
review period, NMFS requests that
applicants provide basic information
regarding proposed hydroacoustic
monitoring plans as part of IHA
applications. We also generally ask for
comprehensive monitoring plans for
review prior to publication of the final
IHA. If NMFS has received the
monitoring plan before publication of
the final IHA, it is shared with the
Commission and posted to our website.
However, the MMPA does not require
submission of the monitoring plan prior
to publication of the final IHA. Under
these conditions, NMFS indicates in the
final IHA that a hydroacoustic
monitoring plan must be submitted to
NMFS and approved prior to initiation
of the monitoring. NMFS will also share
the plan with the Commission for
review in such cases.
Comment 7: The Commission
recommends that NMFS, in lieu of
adopting its proposed renewal process
for extending authorizations beyond
their original one-year period of validity
without providing a new opportunity
for public review and comment, use
abbreviated Federal Register notices
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Nov 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
and reference existing documents to
streamline the incidental harassment
authorization process. If NMFS adopts
the proposed renewal process
notwithstanding the Commission’s
recommendation, the Commission
further recommends that NMFS provide
the Commission and the public with a
legal analysis supporting its conclusion
that the process is consistent with the
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA.
NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates
the streamlining achieved by the use of
abbreviated FR notices and intends to
continue using them for proposed IHAs
that include minor changes from
previously issued IHAs, but which do
not satisfy the renewal requirements.
We believe our method for issuing
renewals meets statutory requirements
and maximizes efficiency. Importantly,
such renewals would be limited to
circumstances where: The activities are
identical or nearly identical to those
analyzed in the proposed IHA;
monitoring does not indicate impacts
that were not previously analyzed and
authorized; and, the mitigation and
monitoring requirements remain the
same, all of which allow the public to
comment on the appropriateness and
effects of a renewal at the same time the
public provides comments on the initial
IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the
language for future proposed IHAs to
clarify that all IHAs, including renewal
IHAs, are valid for no more than one
year and that the agency would consider
only one renewal for a project at this
time. In addition, notice of issuance or
denial of a renewal IHA would be
published in the Federal Register, as
they are for all IHAs. The option for
issuing renewal IHAs has been in
NMFS’s incidental take regulations
since 1996. We will provide any
additional information to the
Commission and consider posting a
description of the renewal process on
our website before any renewal is issued
utilizing this process.
Description of Marine Mammals
A description of the marine mammals
in the area of the activities is found in
these previous documents, which
remains applicable to the issued 2018–
2019 IHA as well. In addition, NMFS
has reviewed recent draft Stock
Assessment Reports, information on
relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and
recent scientific literature, and
determined that no new information
affects our original analysis of impacts
under the 2017–2018 IHA.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55351
Potential Effects on Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
A description of the potential effects
of the specified activities on marine
mammals and their habitat may be
found in these previous documents,
which remains applicable to the
issuance of the 2018–2019 IHA. There is
no new information on potential effects.
Estimated Take
A detailed description of the methods
and inputs used to estimate authorized
take is found in these previous
documents. The methods of estimating
take for the 2018–2019 IHA are identical
to those used in the 2017–2018 IHA.
The source levels remain unchanged
from the previously issued IHA, and
NMFS’ 2016 acoustic technical
guidance was used to address new
acoustic thresholds in the notice of
issuance of the 2017–2018 IHA.
Specifically, local observational data
was used to calculate daily take rates in
the absence of density data. Since the
number of pile-driving days (50)
planned for both the 2017–2018 IHA
and the 2018–2019 IHA are the same,
the total estimated take projections will
be identical.
Description of Mitigation, Monitoring
and Reporting Measures
A description of mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting measures is
found in the previous documents,
which are identical to those contained
in the 2018–2019 IHA. The following
measures would apply to ADOT&PF’s
mitigation requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zone—
For all pile driving activities, ADOT&PF
will establish a shutdown zone identical
to those described in the initial Federal
Register notice of issuance (82 FR
17209; April 10, 2017) The purpose of
a shutdown zone is generally to define
an area within which shutdown of
activity would occur upon sighting of a
marine mammal (or in anticipation of an
animal entering the defined area). In
this case, shutdown zones are intended
to contain areas in which sound
pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed
acoustic injury criteria for some
authorized species, based on NMFS’
acoustic technical guidance published
in the Federal Register on August 4,
2016 (81 FR 51693).
Establishment of Monitoring Zones—
ADOT&PF must establish Level A
harassment zones. These zones include
areas where animals may be exposed to
sound levels that could result in
permanent threshold shift (PTS).
ADOT&PF will establish Level B
harassment disturbance zones which are
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
55352
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Notices
areas where SPLs equal or exceed 160
dB rms for impact driving and 120 dB
rms during vibratory driving. The Level
A and Level B harassment zones are the
same as those described in the initial
Federal Register notice of issuance (82
FR 17209; April 10, 2017). Observation
of monitoring zones enables observers to
be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the
project area and outside the shutdown
zone and thus prepare for potential
shutdowns of activity. NMFS has
established monitoring protocols,
including recording the number of
animal observed in the Level A and
Level B harassment zones. These
protocols are described in the Federal
Register notice of the issuance (82 FR
17209; April 10, 2017) and are based on
the distance and size of the monitoring
and shutdown zones. These same
protocols are contained in this 2018–
2019 IHA. Shutdown, Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
zones are depicted in Table 2.
TABLE 2—SHUTDOWN, LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPACT AND
VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING
Shutdown
zone—impact/
vibratory
(meters)
Species
Steller Sea Lion ...........................................................................................................................
Humpback whale .........................................................................................................................
Harbor Seal ..................................................................................................................................
Harbor Porpoise ...........................................................................................................................
Killer whale ..................................................................................................................................
Minke whale .................................................................................................................................
Dall’s Porpoise .............................................................................................................................
Temporal and Seasonal Restrictions—
Work may only occur during daylight
hours, when visual monitoring of
marine mammals can be conducted and
all in-water construction will be limited
to the periods between March 1 and
May 31, 2019, and September 1 and
November 30, 2019.
Soft Start—The use of a soft-start
procedure is 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 will be required
to implement soft start procedures. Soft
start is not required during vibratory
pile driving and removal activities.
Visual Marine Mammal
Observation—Monitoring must be
conducted by PSOs, who are trained
biologists, with minimum qualifications
described in the Federal Register notice
of the issuance of the 2017–2018 IHA
(82 FR 17209; April 4, 2017). In order
to effectively monitor the pile driving
monitoring zones, two MMOs must be
positioned at the best practical vantage
point(s). If waters exceed a sea-state
which restricts the observers’ ability to
make observations within the shutdown
zone (e.g., excessive wind or fog), pile
installation and removal will cease. Pile
driving will not be initiated until the
entire shutdown zone is visible. MMOs
shall record specific information on the
sighting forms as described in the
Federal Register notice of the issuance
of the 2017–2018 IHA (82 FR 17209;
April 10, 2017). At the conclusion of the
in-water construction work, ADOT&PF
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Nov 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
will provide NMFS with a monitoring
report which includes summaries of
recorded takes and estimates of the
number of marine mammals that may
have been harassed.
Determinations
ADOT&PF plans to conduct in-water
construction activities similar to those
covered in the previous 2017–2018 IHA.
As described above, the number of
estimated takes of the same stocks of
marine mammals is the same as those
authorized in the 2017–2018 IHA that
were found to meet the negligible
impact and small numbers standards.
Our analysis showed that less than 9.07
percent of the populations of affected
stocks, with the exception of minke and
killer whales, could be taken by
harassment. For Northern resident and
West Coast transient killer whales, the
percentages, when instances of take are
compared to abundance, are 48.2
percent and 51.8 percent, respectively.
However, the takes estimated for these
stocks (up to 126 instances assuming all
takes are accrued to a single stock) are
not likely to represent unique
individuals. Instead, we anticipate that
there will be multiple takes of a smaller
number of individuals.
The Northern resident killer whale
stock are most commonly seen in the
waters around the northern end of
Vancouver Island, and in sheltered
inlets along B.C.’s Central and North
Coasts. They also range northward into
Southeast Alaska in the winter months.
Pile driving operations are not
permitted from December through
February. It is unlikely that such a large
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25/10
550/20
100/10
100/20
25/10
550/20
100/20
Level A
harassment
zone—impact
(meters)
n/a
n/a
285
630
n/a
n/a
630
Level B
harassment
zone—impact/
vibratory
(meters)
2,090/3,265
2,090/3,265
2,090/3,265
2,090/3,265
2,090/3,265
2,090/3,265
2,090/3,265
portion of Northern resident killer
whales with ranges of this magnitude
would be concentrated in and around
Icy Passage.
NMFS believes that small numbers of
the West coast transient killer whale
stock would be taken based on the
limited region of exposure in
comparison with the known distribution
of the transient stock. The West coast
transient stock ranges from Southeast
Alaska to California, while the planned
project activity would be stationary. A
notable percentage of West coast
transient whales have never been
observed in Southeast Alaska. Only 155
West coast transient killer whales have
been identified as occurring in
Southeast Alaska according to Dahlheim
and White (2010). The same study
identified three pods of transients,
equivalent to 19 animals that remained
almost exclusively in the southern part
of Southeast Alaska (i.e. Clarence Strait
and Sumner Strait). This information
indicates that only a small subset of the
entire West coast Transient stock would
be at risk for take in the Icy Passage area
because a sizable portion of the stock
has either not been observed in
Southeast Alaska or consistently
remains far south of Icy Passage.
There is no current abundance
estimate for minke whale since
population data on this species is dated.
However, the authorized take of 42
minke whales may be considered small.
A visual survey for cetaceans was
conducted in the central-eastern Bering
Sea in July-August 1999, and in the
southeastern Bering Sea in 2000. Results
of the surveys in 1999 and 2000 provide
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Notices
provisional abundance estimates of 810
and 1,003 minke whales in the centraleastern and southeastern Bering Sea,
respectively (Moore et al., 2002).
Additionally, line-transect surveys were
conducted in shelf and nearshore waters
in 2001–2003 from the Kenai Fjords in
the Gulf of Alaska to the central
Aleutian Islands. Minke whale
abundance was estimated to be 1,233 for
this area (Zerbini et al., 2006). However,
these estimates cannot be used as an
estimate of the entire Alaska stock of
minke whales because only a portion of
the stock’s range was surveyed. (Allen
and Anglis 2012). Clearly, 42 authorized
takes should be considered a small
number, as it constitutes only 5.2
percent of the smallest abundance
estimate generated during the surveys
just described and each of these surveys
represented only a portion of the minke
whale range.
Therefore, the number of individual
animals authorized to be taken for all
species are considered small relative to
the relevant stocks or populations.
The 2018–2019 IHA includes
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements that are identical to those
depicted in the 2017–2018 IHA, and
there is no new information suggesting
that our analysis or findings should
change.
Based on the information contained
here and in the referenced documents,
NMFS has determined the following: (1)
The required mitigation measures will
effect the least practicable impact on
marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat; (2) the authorized takes
will have a negligible impact on the
affected marine mammal species or
stocks; (3) the authorized takes
represent small numbers of marine
mammals relative to the affected stock
abundances; and (4) ADOT&PF’s
activities will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on taking for subsistence
purposes as no relevant subsistence uses
of marine mammals are implicated by
this action.
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
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Nov 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
In order to comply with the ESA,
NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR)
Protected Resources Division issued a
Biological Opinion on March 21, 2017
under section 7 of the ESA, on the
issuance of an IHA to ADOT&PF under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. This
consultation concluded that the project
was likely to adversely affect but
unlikely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the threatened Mexico DPS
of humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) or the endangered
western DPS of Steller sea lion
(Eumatopias jubatus), or adversely
modify designated critical habitat for
Steller sea lions. In a memo dated June
13, 2018, NMFS AKR concluded that reinitiation of section 7 consultation is not
necessary for the issuance of the 2018–
2019 IHA. The only modification to the
project is a time shift of one year. No
additional take has been requested by
ADOT&PF or has been authorized by
NMFS. All mitigation measures
described in the Biological Opinion
would be implemented to reduce
harassment of marine mammals and
document take of marine mammals. For
these reasons, we anticipate no new or
changed effects of the action beyond
what was considered in the 2017
Biological Opinion.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with NOAA policy, the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
and the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–
1508), NMFS determined the issuance
of the IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
This action is consistent with categories
of activities identified in CE B4 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.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations,
we have issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for
conducting the described construction
activities related to city dock and ferry
terminal improvements from December
15, 2018 through December 14, 2019,
provided the previously described
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
55353
Dated: October 26, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–24064 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
Inland Waterways Users Board; Notice
of Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice; correction.
The notice of an open meeting
scheduled for November 28, 2018
published in the Federal Register on
October 26, 2018 has a new date. The
meeting will be held on November 29,
2018.
SUMMARY:
The Inland Waterways Users
Board will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. on November 29, 2018. Public
registration will begin at 7:15 a.m.
DATES:
Mr.
Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal
Officer (DFO) for the committee, in
writing at the Institute for Water
Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR–GM, 7701
Telegraph Road, Casey Building,
Alexandria, VA 22315–3868; by
telephone at 703–428–6438; and by
email at Mark.Pointon@usace.army.mil.
Alternatively, contact Mr. Kenneth E.
Lichtman, the Alternate Designated
Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the
Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR–GW,
7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building,
Alexandria, VA 22315–3868; by
telephone at 703–428–8083; and by
email at Kenneth.E.Lichtman@
usace.army.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
None.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018–24147 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55348-55353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24064]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG383
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Gustavus Ferry Terminal
Improvements Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that we have issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to
take small numbers of animals, by Level A and Level B harassment,
incidental to the Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements project in
Gustavus, Alaska
DATES: The authorization is effective from December 15, 2018, through
December 14, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application,
supporting documents, as well as the issued IHA may be obtained online
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of
problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed
above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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
[[Page 55349]]
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 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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(NDAA)(Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified
geographical region'' limitations indicated above and amended the
definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military readiness
activity.'' The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms
cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
History of Request
On July 31, 2015, NMFS received an application from the Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) requesting
the take of marine mammals incidental to reconstructing the existing
Gustavus Ferry Terminal in Gustavus, Alaska. NMFS published a notice of
proposed IHA and request for comments in the Federal Register on June
23, 2016 (81 FR 40852). We subsequently published the final notice of
our issuance of the IHA on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17209), making the IHA
effective from December 15, 2017 through December 14, 2018. In-water
work associated with the project was expected to be completed within
the one-year timeframe of the IHA. The specified activities were
expected to result in the take of seven species of marine mammals
including harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise
(Phocoenoides dalli), killer whale (Orcinus orca), humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae), and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).
On May 8, 2018, ADOT&PF informed NMFS that work on the project
would be postponed due to design revisions and local community
considerations and that no work would be completed under the 2017-2018
IHA. ADOT&PF requested that a new IHA be issued that would be effective
from December 15, 2018 through December 14, 2019. NMFS published a
notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments in the Federal
Register on August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39424). Under this IHA, ADOT&PF will
conduct pile driving activities between the in water work window dates
of March 1 through May 31, 2019, and September 1 through November 30,
2019. Although there were minor modifications to the work plan covered
under the issued IHA, the number of authorized takes remains unchanged
from those listed in the 2017-2018 Authorization.
Description of the Specified Activities
The 2018-2019 IHA covers the same in-water construction activities
as those covered by the 2017-2018 IHA which was issued for the
modernization of the Gustavus Ferry Terminal project. Minor revisions
have been made to the number and types of piles that will be installed
and removed. These revisions were described by NMFS in a notice of
proposed IHA and request for comments published in the Federal Register
on August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39424). Additionally, NMFS refers the reader
to the documents related to the previously issued 2017-2018 IHA for
more detailed description of the project activities. These previous
documents include the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the
2017-2018 IHA for ADOT&PF's Gustavus Ferry Terminal Improvements
project (82 FR 17209; April 10, 2017), ADOT&PF's application, the
Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 40852; June 23,
2016) and all associated references and documents. A detailed
description of the planned vibratory and impact pile driving activities
at the ferry terminal improvements project is found in these documents.
The description remains accurate with the exception of the minor
modifications noted below.
Differences between the 2017-2018 IHA and the issued 2018-2019 IHA
are shown in Table 1. Generally speaking, pile driving and removal will
occur over the same number of days (maximum of 50) with installation
and removal of 16 additional piles over 21 additional hours for the
2018-2019 IHA. These changes represent a 3.5 percent increase in the
number of piles installed and a 21.9 percent increase in the number of
piles removed. The duration of impact driving will remain the same
while the time spent vibratory driving will increase by 18.4 percent.
The additional time required for vibratory driving is due to the
increase in anticipated number of piles removed. Note that these
changes will have a nominal impact on the calculated Level A harassment
isopleths and no effect on Level B harassment isopleths. Therefore, the
size of the Level A harassment and Level B harassment zones remains
unchanged.
Table 1--Gustavus Ferry Pile Installation and Removal Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of piles--2017- # of piles--2018-
Pile size (Inches) 2018 IHA 2019 IHA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.............................. 14................ 18.
24.............................. 40................ 34 install/12
remove.
18.............................. 0................. 4 remove.
16.............................. 0................. 4 install/4
remove.
12.75........................... 3 install/16 3 install/9
remove. remove.
Total installed/total Piles. 57/73............. 59/89.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving Time Duration 2017-2018 IHA 2018-2019 IHA
(hours). (hours).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Driving.................. 57................ 57.
Vibratory Driving............... 114............... 135.
Total....................... 171............... 192.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55350]]
A description of ADOT&PF's planned project is provided in the
Federal Register notice for proposed IHA (83 FR 39424; August 9, 2018).
Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned activities.
Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to
that Federal Register notice and related documents for the description
of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Federal Register on August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39424). That notice described
ADOT&PF's proposed activity, the marine mammal species that may be
affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine
mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a
single comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
Specific comments from the Commission's letter and corresponding
responses are provided below.
Comment 1: The Commission wrote that in the original IHA
application submitted in 2016, ADOT&PF proposed to use 154.3 decibels
(dB) re 1 micropascal ([micro]Pa) at 10 meters (m) as the proxy source
level (SL) for vibratory pile driving of 30-inch steel piles based on
measurement of a single pile obtained at the ferry terminal in Kake,
Alaska (McGillivray et al. 2015). The Commission noted that this
measurement is much lower than other measurements obtained from
vibratory pile driving of 30-in steel piles at other locations and
lower than measurements obtained from another pile at Kake. The
Commission asserts that the primary factor affecting the source level
is the sediment composition, which at Kake consists of organic mud.
However, Starkes and Stutes (2016) stated that geotechnical reports
indicated that substrates at Kake and Gustavus differ and that
substrates at Gustavus are composed primarily of sand and silty sands.
The Commission recommended use of a mean of 166 dB re 1 [micro]Pa based
on source levels obtained at other locations where the substrates are
comprised of sand and silt rather than 157.7 dB re 1 [micro]Pa at 10 m
NMFS adopted for Gustavus. The Commission also recommends that NMFS re-
estimate the extents of the Level A and B harassment zones accordingly
and increase the numbers of marine mammal takes appropriately.
NMFS Response: As noted above, NMFS used a proxy source level of
157.7 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for vibratory driving of 30-in steel piles during
the estimated take analysis used to develop the original Gustavus IHA.
ADOT&PF will be using the same type of vibratory hammers at Gustavus as
were used at Kake while the pile types and sizes are comparable between
the two sites. NMFS does not dispute that the SL used in the Gustavus
analysis is generally lower than others that have been recorded across
various sites. However, SLs for similar piles measured at different
locations tend to cover a range of values. For example, SL measurements
from Kodiak for vibratory driving of the same size and type of pile
were even lower than those recorded at Kake, although the researchers
speculated that the low values be due to the drilling/socketing of
piles or sediment composition at Kodiak (Denes et al., 2017). For the
Gustavus analysis, NMFS elected to use a value from the lower end of
recorded ranges. In order to confirm that the SLs adopted by NMFS are
appropriate for use at Gustavus, NMFS will require ADOT&PF to conduct
sound source verification (SSV) testing. If the recorded SLs at
Gustavus are appreciably greater than those measured at Kake, ADOT&PF
will increase the shutdown and harassment zones as appropriate.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS require ADOT&PF to
use at least three Protected Species Observers (PSO) to monitor the
full extent of the Level B harassment zone during all vibratory pile-
driving activities and ensure the numbers of animals taken are
extrapolated to the full extent of the Level B harassment zone, if
unable to be fully monitored.
NMFS Response: NMFS believes that the existing Level B harassment
zone can be adequately measured utilizing only two PSOs. The option of
adding more PSOs was discussed with ADOT&PF. NMFS suggested that PSOs
could be stationed on vessels or on nearby islands. However, due to the
frequency, severity and unpredictability of weather in Icy Passage,
ADOT&PF was reluctant to employ vessels for monitoring purposes since
the safety of PSOs could be at risk. Additionally, island-based PSOs
could be stranded on these uninhabited islands overnight, or longer, if
retrieval vessels are unable to pick up observers due to weather
conditions. NMFS concurred with these assessments. To estimate the
total number of takes, NMFS will require ADOT&PF to extrapolate
observed take numbers to cover the entire Level B harassment zone if
portions cannot be monitored effectively by PSOs.
Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) increase the
numbers of Level A harassment takes for harbor seals, harbor porpoises,
and Steller sea lions based on their residency patterns, social
behavior, and potential to occur within the various Level A harassment
zones and (2) reduce the size of the shutdown zone for Steller sea
lions to reduce frequency of shutdowns.
NMFS Response: NMFS discussed with ADOT&PF both increasing take of
the species listed above and reducing the size of the Steller sea lion
shutdown zone. Based on observational data collected by Gustavus, NMFS
and the applicant believe that the existing take numbers are adequate.
Note that ADOT&PF is currently required to shut down at 4 p.m., after
which Steller sea lions are known to follow charter fishing vessels to
the dock. Additionally, shutdown will occur when five or more Steller
sea lions are observed following charter fishing vessels to the dock
prior to 4 p.m. These are the conditions that would most likely result
in take of Seller sea lions. Given these requirements, ADOT&PF and NMFS
do not believe that the existing shutdown zone will result in a high
rate of shutdowns.
Comment 4: If NMFS does not follow the Commission's
recommendations, the Commission recommends that NMFS require ADOT&PF to
cease its activities if authorized take limits are met. The Commission
recommends that the authorization only be revised after a 30-day public
comment period is afforded for review of any revisions to the
authorization issued in 2018. The Commission understands that in
certain circumstances (e.g., unexpected impacts from El Ni[ntilde]o
conditions) the numbers of authorized takes may not be sufficient.
However, the Commission does not believe those types of unforeseeable
circumstances should not be treated equally to those which arise from
NMFS failing to authorize adequate numbers of takes.
NMFS Response: NMFS believes that the number of takes authorized
under this IHA is adequate to cover the action planned by ADOT&PF. As
is the case for any IHA, if take numbers for one or more authorized
species are exceeded, the applicant is required to cease in-water pile
driving activities and contact NMFS. Furthermore, NMFS is requiring
ADOT&PF to conduct SSV testing to confirm that measured sound source
levels at the action site are similar to the values that were used to
estimate take as well identify shutdown and harassment zone sizes. As
noted in the IHA, NMFS will revise shutdown and harassment zone sizes
if necessary based on SSV testing results without requiring a 30-day
comment period.
[[Page 55351]]
Comment 5: The Commission had previously recommended that NMFS make
several general improvements for pile-driving authorizations. As part
of this comment letter, the Commission indicated that NMFS should (1)
incorporate the Commission's various recommendations into its pile-
driving assessment guidance, (2) finalize that guidance in the near
term, including compiling source level data into a central database,
and (3) make such guidance available on NMFS's incidental take
authorization website.
NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's interest in
improving pile-driving authorizations. NMFS has been developing pile-
driving guidance documents that include many of the Commission's
recommendations. As soon as draft documents have been completed, they
will be shared with the Commission. Once the guidance documents have
been finalized, they will be posted on NMFS's incidental take
authorization website, as appropriate.
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS require action
proponents to provide proposed hydroacoustic monitoring plans when
authorization applications are submitted and make those plans available
for public comment. If such plans are not provided in a timely manner,
at the very least, NMFS should provide them to the Commission for
review sufficiently in advance of issuing the final authorization.
NMFS Response: During the initial review period, NMFS requests that
applicants provide basic information regarding proposed hydroacoustic
monitoring plans as part of IHA applications. We also generally ask for
comprehensive monitoring plans for review prior to publication of the
final IHA. If NMFS has received the monitoring plan before publication
of the final IHA, it is shared with the Commission and posted to our
website. However, the MMPA does not require submission of the
monitoring plan prior to publication of the final IHA. Under these
conditions, NMFS indicates in the final IHA that a hydroacoustic
monitoring plan must be submitted to NMFS and approved prior to
initiation of the monitoring. NMFS will also share the plan with the
Commission for review in such cases.
Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS, in lieu of adopting
its proposed renewal process for extending authorizations beyond their
original one-year period of validity without providing a new
opportunity for public review and comment, use abbreviated Federal
Register notices and reference existing documents to streamline the
incidental harassment authorization process. If NMFS adopts the
proposed renewal process notwithstanding the Commission's
recommendation, the Commission further recommends that NMFS provide the
Commission and the public with a legal analysis supporting its
conclusion that the process is consistent with the requirements under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.
NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates the streamlining achieved by the
use of abbreviated FR notices and intends to continue using them for
proposed IHAs that include minor changes from previously issued IHAs,
but which do not satisfy the renewal requirements.
We believe our method for issuing renewals meets statutory
requirements and maximizes efficiency. Importantly, such renewals would
be limited to circumstances where: The activities are identical or
nearly identical to those analyzed in the proposed IHA; monitoring does
not indicate impacts that were not previously analyzed and authorized;
and, the mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same, all of
which allow the public to comment on the appropriateness and effects of
a renewal at the same time the public provides comments on the initial
IHA. NMFS has, however, modified the language for future proposed IHAs
to clarify that all IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more
than one year and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a
project at this time. In addition, notice of issuance or denial of a
renewal IHA would be published in the Federal Register, as they are for
all IHAs. The option for issuing renewal IHAs has been in NMFS's
incidental take regulations since 1996. We will provide any additional
information to the Commission and consider posting a description of the
renewal process on our website before any renewal is issued utilizing
this process.
Description of Marine Mammals
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities
is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to the
issued 2018-2019 IHA as well. In addition, NMFS has reviewed recent
draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual
Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature, and determined that
no new information affects our original analysis of impacts under the
2017-2018 IHA.
Potential Effects on Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
A description of the potential effects of the specified activities
on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in these previous
documents, which remains applicable to the issuance of the 2018-2019
IHA. There is no new information on potential effects.
Estimated Take
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate
authorized take is found in these previous documents. The methods of
estimating take for the 2018-2019 IHA are identical to those used in
the 2017-2018 IHA. The source levels remain unchanged from the
previously issued IHA, and NMFS' 2016 acoustic technical guidance was
used to address new acoustic thresholds in the notice of issuance of
the 2017-2018 IHA. Specifically, local observational data was used to
calculate daily take rates in the absence of density data. Since the
number of pile-driving days (50) planned for both the 2017-2018 IHA and
the 2018-2019 IHA are the same, the total estimated take projections
will be identical.
Description of Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures
A description of mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures is
found in the previous documents, which are identical to those contained
in the 2018-2019 IHA. The following measures would apply to ADOT&PF's
mitigation requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zone--For all pile driving activities,
ADOT&PF will establish a shutdown zone identical to those described in
the initial Federal Register notice of issuance (82 FR 17209; April 10,
2017) The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area
within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). In
this case, shutdown zones are intended to contain areas in which sound
pressure levels (SPLs) equal or exceed acoustic injury criteria for
some authorized species, based on NMFS' acoustic technical guidance
published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2016 (81 FR 51693).
Establishment of Monitoring Zones--ADOT&PF must establish Level A
harassment zones. These zones include areas where animals may be
exposed to sound levels that could result in permanent threshold shift
(PTS). ADOT&PF will establish Level B harassment disturbance zones
which are
[[Page 55352]]
areas where SPLs equal or exceed 160 dB rms for impact driving and 120
dB rms during vibratory driving. The Level A and Level B harassment
zones are the same as those described in the initial Federal Register
notice of issuance (82 FR 17209; April 10, 2017). Observation of
monitoring zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the project area and outside the shutdown
zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. NMFS has
established monitoring protocols, including recording the number of
animal observed in the Level A and Level B harassment zones. These
protocols are described in the Federal Register notice of the issuance
(82 FR 17209; April 10, 2017) and are based on the distance and size of
the monitoring and shutdown zones. These same protocols are contained
in this 2018-2019 IHA. Shutdown, Level A harassment and Level B
harassment zones are depicted in Table 2.
Table 2--Shutdown, Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Isopleths Associated with Impact and Vibratory Pile
Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Shutdown zone-- Level A harassment
Species impact/ harassment zone--impact/
vibratory zone--impact vibratory
(meters) (meters) (meters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion................................................ 25/10 n/a 2,090/3,265
Humpback whale.................................................. 550/20 n/a 2,090/3,265
Harbor Seal..................................................... 100/10 285 2,090/3,265
Harbor Porpoise................................................. 100/20 630 2,090/3,265
Killer whale.................................................... 25/10 n/a 2,090/3,265
Minke whale..................................................... 550/20 n/a 2,090/3,265
Dall's Porpoise................................................. 100/20 630 2,090/3,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporal and Seasonal Restrictions--Work may only occur during
daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be
conducted and all in-water construction will be limited to the periods
between March 1 and May 31, 2019, and September 1 and November 30,
2019.
Soft Start--The use of a soft-start procedure is 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
will be required to implement soft start procedures. Soft start is not
required during vibratory pile driving and removal activities.
Visual Marine Mammal Observation--Monitoring must be conducted by
PSOs, who are trained biologists, with minimum qualifications described
in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2017-2018 IHA (82
FR 17209; April 4, 2017). In order to effectively monitor the pile
driving monitoring zones, two MMOs must be positioned at the best
practical vantage point(s). If waters exceed a sea-state which
restricts the observers' ability to make observations within the
shutdown zone (e.g., excessive wind or fog), pile installation and
removal will cease. Pile driving will not be initiated until the entire
shutdown zone is visible. MMOs shall record specific information on the
sighting forms as described in the Federal Register notice of the
issuance of the 2017-2018 IHA (82 FR 17209; April 10, 2017). At the
conclusion of the in-water construction work, ADOT&PF will provide NMFS
with a monitoring report which includes summaries of recorded takes and
estimates of the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.
Determinations
ADOT&PF plans to conduct in-water construction activities similar
to those covered in the previous 2017-2018 IHA. As described above, the
number of estimated takes of the same stocks of marine mammals is the
same as those authorized in the 2017-2018 IHA that were found to meet
the negligible impact and small numbers standards. Our analysis showed
that less than 9.07 percent of the populations of affected stocks, with
the exception of minke and killer whales, could be taken by harassment.
For Northern resident and West Coast transient killer whales, the
percentages, when instances of take are compared to abundance, are 48.2
percent and 51.8 percent, respectively. However, the takes estimated
for these stocks (up to 126 instances assuming all takes are accrued to
a single stock) are not likely to represent unique individuals.
Instead, we anticipate that there will be multiple takes of a smaller
number of individuals.
The Northern resident killer whale stock are most commonly seen in
the waters around the northern end of Vancouver Island, and in
sheltered inlets along B.C.'s Central and North Coasts. They also range
northward into Southeast Alaska in the winter months. Pile driving
operations are not permitted from December through February. It is
unlikely that such a large portion of Northern resident killer whales
with ranges of this magnitude would be concentrated in and around Icy
Passage.
NMFS believes that small numbers of the West coast transient killer
whale stock would be taken based on the limited region of exposure in
comparison with the known distribution of the transient stock. The West
coast transient stock ranges from Southeast Alaska to California, while
the planned project activity would be stationary. A notable percentage
of West coast transient whales have never been observed in Southeast
Alaska. Only 155 West coast transient killer whales have been
identified as occurring in Southeast Alaska according to Dahlheim and
White (2010). The same study identified three pods of transients,
equivalent to 19 animals that remained almost exclusively in the
southern part of Southeast Alaska (i.e. Clarence Strait and Sumner
Strait). This information indicates that only a small subset of the
entire West coast Transient stock would be at risk for take in the Icy
Passage area because a sizable portion of the stock has either not been
observed in Southeast Alaska or consistently remains far south of Icy
Passage.
There is no current abundance estimate for minke whale since
population data on this species is dated. However, the authorized take
of 42 minke whales may be considered small. A visual survey for
cetaceans was conducted in the central-eastern Bering Sea in July-
August 1999, and in the southeastern Bering Sea in 2000. Results of the
surveys in 1999 and 2000 provide
[[Page 55353]]
provisional abundance estimates of 810 and 1,003 minke whales in the
central-eastern and southeastern Bering Sea, respectively (Moore et
al., 2002). Additionally, line-transect surveys were conducted in shelf
and nearshore waters in 2001-2003 from the Kenai Fjords in the Gulf of
Alaska to the central Aleutian Islands. Minke whale abundance was
estimated to be 1,233 for this area (Zerbini et al., 2006). However,
these estimates cannot be used as an estimate of the entire Alaska
stock of minke whales because only a portion of the stock's range was
surveyed. (Allen and Anglis 2012). Clearly, 42 authorized takes should
be considered a small number, as it constitutes only 5.2 percent of the
smallest abundance estimate generated during the surveys just described
and each of these surveys represented only a portion of the minke whale
range.
Therefore, the number of individual animals authorized to be taken
for all species are considered small relative to the relevant stocks or
populations.
The 2018-2019 IHA includes mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements that are identical to those depicted in the 2017-2018 IHA,
and there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or
findings should change.
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced
documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required
mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine
mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes
will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or
stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine
mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) ADOT&PF's
activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for
subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals
are implicated by this action.
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 whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
In order to comply with the ESA, NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR)
Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on March 21,
2017 under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to ADOT&PF
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. This consultation concluded
that the project was likely to adversely affect but unlikely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened Mexico DPS of
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) or the endangered western DPS
of Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus), or adversely modify
designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions. In a memo dated June
13, 2018, NMFS AKR concluded that re-initiation of section 7
consultation is not necessary for the issuance of the 2018-2019 IHA.
The only modification to the project is a time shift of one year. No
additional take has been requested by ADOT&PF or has been authorized by
NMFS. All mitigation measures described in the Biological Opinion would
be implemented to reduce harassment of marine mammals and document take
of marine mammals. For these reasons, we anticipate no new or changed
effects of the action beyond what was considered in the 2017 Biological
Opinion.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with NOAA policy, the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), NMFS
determined the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in CE B4 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.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to
ADOT&PF for conducting the described construction activities related to
city dock and ferry terminal improvements from December 15, 2018
through December 14, 2019, provided the previously described
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: October 26, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-24064 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
