Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Railroad Dock Dolphin Installation Project, Skagway, Alaska, 64541-64563 [2018-27258]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares
the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of
abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether
an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
NMFS has estimated that take for all
species authorized is less than two
percent of their respective stock
abundance (Table 7). Based on the
analysis contained herein of the
planned activity (including the required
mitigation and monitoring measures)
and the anticipated take of marine
mammals, NMFS finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is authorized or expected to
result from this activity. Therefore,
NMFS has determined that formal
consultation under section 7 of the ESA
is not required for this action.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to WSDOT
for the incidental take of marine
mammals due to in-water construction
work associated with the US 101/
Chehalis River Bridge-Scour Repair
Project for a period of one year,
provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: December 11, 2018.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–27199 Filed 12–14–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
RIN 0648–XG628
National Environmental Policy Act
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
determined that the issuance of the IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization)
with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Railroad
Dock Dolphin Installation Project,
Skagway, Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from White Pass & Yukon Route
(WP&YR) for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to the
Railroad Dock dolphin installation
project in Skagway, Alaska. Pursuant to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to
incidentally take marine mammals
during the specified activities. NMFS is
also requesting comments on a possible
one-year renewal that could be issued
under certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end
of this notice. NMFS will consider
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64541
public comments prior to making any
final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorizations and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than January 16,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Physical
comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910
and electronic comments should be sent
to ITP.Piniak@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments received
electronically, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
file formats only. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list
of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64542
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
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 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization)
with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
activities may result in take, by Level A
and Level B harassment, of marine
mammals located in Taiya Inlet, Alaska.
Summary of Request
On August 21, 2018, NMFS received
a request from WP&YR for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to the
Railroad Dock dolphin installation
project in Skagway, Alaska. WP&YR
submitted a revised version of the
application on November 9, 2018 which
was deemed adequate and complete on
November 15, 2018. WP&YR’s request is
for take of seven species of marine
mammals by Level B harassment and
Level A harassment incidental to impact
pile driving, vibratory pile driving and
removal, and down-the-hole drilling
activities. Neither WP&YR nor NMFS
expects serious injury or mortality to
result from this activity and, therefore,
an IHA is appropriate. In-water
activities (pile installation and
extraction) associated with the project
are scheduled to begin February 1, 2019,
and be completed April 30, 2019.
Dates and Duration
In-water activities (pile installation
and extraction) associated with the
project are scheduled to begin February
1, 2019, and be completed April 30,
2019. Pile installation and removal
would occur for 89 days over the course
of the three months. WP&YR anticipates
up to 10 hours of activity (vibratory
driving, impact driving, and down-thehole drilling) during daylight hours
would occur per day.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
WP&YR requested the authorization
of take of small numbers of marine
mammals incidental to pile driving/
removal and down-the-hole drilling
associated with the installation of two
new 200-ton pile supported mooring
dolphins in Skagway Harbor, Alaska.
The purpose of the project is to provide
ample safe moorage when both
Norwegian Breakaway and Royal
Caribbean Quantum class cruise ship
vessels are in port. The existing dolphin
infrastructure does not allow for both
cruise ships to be moored at the dock at
the same time. The additional dolphins
would allow for both ships to be docked
simultaneously. To facilitate dual
mooring, the proposed project includes
the installation of two 200-ton dolphins,
each comprised of six 42-inch steel
permanent piles 300 feet in length.
WP&YR would also install and
subsequently remove 14 36-inch
template (temporary) piles (200 feet in
length) at the two dolphin locations
which are approximately 100 feet and
200 feet, respectively, south of the
existing southernmost mooring dolphin
at the WP&YR Railroad Dock. The
template and permanent piles are
comprised of two to three 100-feet long
segments which would be spliced (i.e.,
welded) together as they are installed.
All temporary and permanent piles
would require a combination of three
pile installation methods: Vibratory
driving, impact driving, and down-thehole drilling. Sounds produced by these
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Specific Geographic Region
The activities would occur at the
south end of WP&YR’s Railroad Dock
located in Skagway Harbor, Alaska.
Skagway Harbor is located at the
southwestern end of the 2.5-mile (mi)long Skagway River valley. Three
anadromous rivers are located near the
project site including Skagway River,
Taiya River, and Pullen Creek. The
Skagway and Taiya Rivers empty into
Taiya Inlet at the head of Lynn Canal
west and northwest of the project site
respectively. Pullen Creek empties into
the Taiya Inlet on the southeast side of
the valley northeast of the project site.
Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal is the
northernmost fjord on the Inside
Passage of the south coast of Alaska.
The project site is located south of ADL
108521 and seaward of upland Lot 8,
U.S. Survey 5110; Latitude 59.44° North
(N), Longitude 135.33° West (W) (see
Figures 1–3 of WP&YR’s application).
Limited information is available on the
benthic habitat beneath the Railroad
Dock, however the basin is composed of
glacial till sediments, consisting of mud,
silty gravel, cobbles and boulders. The
shoreline along Railroad dock is
armored with riprap and contains little
to no riparian vegetation. This armoring
extends to below the mean higher high
water (MHHW) mark to an unknown
depth. At the project site, the Taiya Inlet
is approximately 2 kilometers (km) wide
and water depth ranges from
approximately 100–200 feet (ft) (30–60
meters (m)); however water depth in
Taiya Inlet reaches over 500 ft (152 m),
within and south of the project area.
Skagway Harbor is frequently visited
by cruise ship vessels during the
summer and is a site of recreational and
commercial activity. Vessels must travel
up Taiya Inlet to enter the Skagway
Harbor.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
To facilitate dual mooring of large
cruise ship vessels, the proposed
Railroad Dock dolphin installation
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
project includes installation of two 200ton dolphins. Two crane barges, one
material barge, and three work boats
(each under 25 feet) would be used to
complete the project. Barges would be
moored on-site for the duration of
construction. Each dolphin would
require the installation and removal of
seven 36-inch steel pipe template piles
(14 total) and the installation six 42inch steel pipe permanent piles (12
total). The temporary template piles
would be installed to aid in
construction and would be removed
after the permanent dolphin piles are
installed. Each temporary template pile
would be approximately 200 ft in length
and would consist of up to two sections
that would be spliced (e.g. welded)
together as they are installed (for a total
of up to 28 segments). Each permanent
pile would be approximately 300 ft in
length and would consist of up to three
sections that would be spliced together
as they installed (for a total of 36
segments).
Template and permanent piles would
be installed in water depths up to 140feet deep and into loose substrate that
is intermixed with cobbles and bouldersized rocks. Due to the nature of deepwater pile installation in loose
sediment, each pile (consisting of two to
three segments) would be installed
using a combination of installation
methods: Vibratory hammer, impact
hammer, and drilling (Table 1). Removal
of template piles would only require the
use of a vibratory hammer. It may be
necessary to switch between installation
methods multiple times per day
depending on encountered conditions.
64543
However, no activities would occur
simultaneously (e.g., only one
installation method would occur on one
pile at any time). Throughout the
project, one crane would be dedicated to
drilling only and the second crane
would alternate between the vibratory
and impact hammers (as noted, only one
crane would be active at any given
time). In addition to alternating between
installation methods, the project would
require the piles segments to be spliced
together to make the piles longer before
continuing installation. That is, the first
segment of pile would be installed using
one or more methods; the second
segment would then be welded to the
first segment and the process would be
repeated until the entire pile is
installed.
TABLE 1—PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL EQUIPMENT
Pile installation equipment
Model/size
Description/purpose
Crane ..........................
200–250–ton barge with a 200–250–ft boom (up to 2
cranes).
APE 200 or equivalent .........................................................
Delmag D100 Diesel hammer or equivalent .......................
Install piles, set dolphin caps, set catwalks, move material,
etc.
Advance pile through overburden to vibratory refusal.
Advance pile through overburden once vibratory refusal
has been reached.
A drill is inserted through the pile all the way down to bedrock. The drill breaks up rock into small flakes (tailings)
which are removed from the drilled hole as the pile or
casing advances.
Vibratory Hammer .......
Impact Hammer ..........
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Drill ..............................
Rock Anchor (8-inch hole): ICE–HS–27 Top drive downhole hammer PDQL–80 or equivalent.
Socket (42-inch hole): PPV ring bit MF34 down hole hammer or equivalent.
The tips of all template piles would
be embedded approximately 60 ft
beneath the mudline using impact or
vibratory hammering and drilling. The
structural design of the dolphins
requires the tips of all permanent piles
to bear on and be socketed in bedrock
located 100–200 ft beneath the mudline.
During installation, some or all piles
will encounter obstructions prior to
reaching final tip depth and will require
drilling through obstructions to meet
project specifications. The first segment
of each pile would be impact or
vibratory driven to first refusal. First
refusal occurs when the pile tip cannot
be advanced any further with a
vibratory or impact hammer. This will
most likely occur when the pile tip is
located on an obstruction (prior to
reaching bedrock) or at bedrock. To
determine whether the pile tip has
reached bedrock, the contractor would
then drill past the segment tip. If the
drill advances up to 20 ft past the
segment tip through rock, bedrock is
encountered. If the drill ‘‘punches
through’’ the obstruction and
encounters soft overburden material, the
pile would continue to be advanced
using drilling, impact, or vibratory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
methods. Once second refusal is
reached, bedrock would again need to
be verified by drilling up to 20-ft past
the pile tip into bedrock. This process
is repeated until bedrock is confirmed
(permanent piles) or the required depth
has been achieved (template piles),
however it is possible that template
piles may be fully installed without
encountering bedrock.
As each pile segment is installed,
WP&YR would splice segments to
increase the length of the pile and
continue with the pile installation.
Splicing pipe pile involves welding
pipe pile end to end with a complete
joint penetration weld. On average,
splicing is anticipated to require three to
five days to complete per pile. For
permanent piles, once bedrock is
confirmed and all segments are welded
together, a smaller 8-inch drill would be
used to drill a rock anchor hole into
bedrock 50 ft past the pile tip. The 8inch hole for the rock anchor is drilled
beneath the pile tip from within the
hollow pipe pile. A steel bar would be
grouted into this hole. Once the grout
sets, a jack would be applied to the top
of the bar and the rock anchor would be
locked off to plates at the top of the pile.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
After the permanent piles are installed,
temporary piles would be removed.
WP&YR estimates drilling and
vibratory hammering would occur for a
maximum of 10 hours per day (although
the amount of time within that 10 hour
window dedicated to each method
cannot be determined at this time as it
is dependent upon substrate conditions)
and total number of impact pile driving
strikes would not exceed 2,000 per day.
WP&YR estimates that it would take 8
hours to install and remove one
template pile and 28.1 hours (over the
course of multiple days) to install one
permanent pile (additional details can
be found in section 2 of WP&YR’s
application).
After all dolphin piles are installed, a
prefabricated steel dolphin cap would
be set on top of the piles and welded to
the cap. The project also involves
modifications to an existing dolphin cap
and installation of two catwalks;
however, this work does not include inwater work and is not anticipated to
take marine mammals. All barges,
cranes, equipment, personnel,
temporary structures, unused materials,
etc. would be removed from the site
upon project completion.
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64544
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
WP&YR anticipates all in-water
construction would occur between
February 1, 2019 and April 30, 2019 (89
days) with mobilization occurring
December through January, 2019 and
above water work and demobilization
occurring April through May, 2019.
Multiple or all installation methods of
template and permanent piles may
occur on the same day, but would not
occur at the same time. Work may occur
seven days per week.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’ Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR; https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more
general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’
website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence in the Taiya
Inlet and larger Lynn Canal and
summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including
regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA and potential biological removal
(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017).
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated
or authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’ stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’ U.S. Alaska SARs (e.g., Muto et
al. 2018). All values presented in Table
2 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available in
the 2017 SARs (Muto et al. 2018) and
draft 2018 SARs (available online at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports).
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN TAIYA INLET DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale .........................
Eschrichtius robustus ................
Eastern North Pacific ................
-, -, N
26,960 (0.05, 25,849,
2016).
Family Balaenidae:
Humpback whale ................
Minke Whale .......................
Megaptera novaeangliae ..........
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ......
Central North Pacific .................
Alaska .......................................
-, -, Y
-, -, N
10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 2006)
N/A ..................................
801
138
83
UND
25
0
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale ..............................
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale .........................
Physeter macrocephalus ..........
North Pacific .............................
E, D, Y
N/A (N/A, N/A, 2015) ......
UND
4.4
Orcinus orca .............................
Alaska Resident ........................
-, -, N
24
1
-, -, N
-, -, N
1.96
5.87
0
1
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise ..................
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ....
Northern Resident
Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands,
Bering Sea Transient
West Coast Transient
North Pacific .............................
2,347 (N/A, 2,347,
2012) 4.
261 (N/A, 261, 2011) 4 ....
587 (N/A, 587, 2012) 4 ....
-, -, N
-, -, N
243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 4 ....
26,880 (N/A, N/A, 1990)
2.4
UND
0
0
Phocoena phocoena .................
Southeast Alaska ......................
-, -, Y
8.9
34
Dall’s porpoise ....................
Phocoenoides dalli ....................
Alaska .......................................
-, -, N
975 (0.12–0.14, 897,
2012) 5.
83,400 (0.097, N/A,
1991).
UND
38
326
252
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
Steller sea lion ....................
Eumetopias jubatus ..................
Western U.S .............................
E, D, Y
Eastern U.S
T, D, Y ......................................
41,638
(N/A,
41,638,
2015)
54,267 (N/A, 54,267,
2017).
2498 ................................
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
108
64545
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN TAIYA INLET DURING THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY—Continued
Common name
Harbor seal .........................
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Scientific name
Stock
Phoca vitulina richardii ..............
Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage
-, -, N
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
9,478 (N/A, 8,605, 2011)
PBR
155
Annual
M/SI 3
50
1 Endangered
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A).
3 These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries,
ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
4 N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs.
5 In the SAR for harbor porpoise, NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland southeast Alaska waters (these abundance estimates
have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative).
All species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas are
included in Table 2. However, the
temporal and/or spatial occurrence of
the Pacific white-sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), gray
whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and
sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)
are such that take is not expected to
occur, and they are not discussed
further beyond the explanation
provided here. The range of Pacific
white-sided dolphin is suggested to
overlap with Lynn Canal (Muto et al.
2018), but no sightings have been
documented in the project area
(Dahlheim et al. 2009; K. Gross, Never
Monday Charters, personal
communication; R. Ford, Taiya Inlet
Watershed Council, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
Gray whale sightings in this northern
portion of Southeast Alaska are very
rare; there have only been eight
sightings since 1997 (J. Neilson,
National Park Service, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
None of these observations occurred in
the Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal. Tagged
sperm whales have been tracked within
the Gulf of Alaska, with one whale
tracked up Lynn Canal during October
2014 (SEASWAP 2017). Tagging studies
primarily show that sperm whales use
the deep water slope habitat extensively
for foraging (Mathias et al. 2012). This
species prefers deeper waters, and are
unlikely to occur in Taiya Inlet.
WP&YR requested take for seven
marine mammal species documented in
the waters of the Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal
(Dahlheim et al. 2009; Muto et al. 2018).
One of the species, the harbor seal, is
known to regularly occur near the
project site year round; however the
closest seasonal haulout site is three
miles (4.8 km) from the project area and
not within the Level B harassment
ensonified area (see Estimated Take).
Moderate to high abundances of Steller
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
sea lions are also known to seasonally
occupy the inlet, with the closest
seasonal haulout located 11 miles (18
km) from the project site. Several
humpback whales have been observed
within Taiya Inlet, sometimes close to
Skagway, during non-winter months.
The remaining four species (harbor
porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, killer whale,
and minke whale) may occur in Taiya
Inlet/Lynn Canal, but less frequently
and farther from Skagway Harbor and
the project site. Information on presence
and distribution in the WP&YR project
area can be found in the
Habitat
No Biologically Important Areas
(BIAs) or ESA-designated critical habitat
overlap with the project area, however
there is seasonally important foraging
habitat for some species of marine
mammal which overlap spatially and
temporally with proposed project
activities. The annual eulachon run
(which occurs for approximately three
to four weeks during April through
May) in Lynn Canal is important to all
marine mammals (particularly Steller
sea lions, and harbor seals, and
humpback whales) for seasonal foraging
and many species travel into Taiya Inlet
to forage on this prey.
Cetaceans
Humpback Whale
The humpback whale is distributed
worldwide in all ocean basins. In
winter, most humpback whales are
found in the subtropical and tropical
waters of the Northern and Southern
Hemispheres, and then migrate to high
latitudes in the summer to feed. The
historic summer feeding range of
humpback whales in the North Pacific
encompassed coastal and inland waters
around the Pacific Rim from Point
Conception, California, north to the Gulf
of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west
along the Aleutian Islands to the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea
of Okhotsk and north of the Bering
Strait (Johnson and Wolman 1984).
There are currently three MMPAdesignated stocks of humpback whales
in the North Pacific: (1) The California/
Oregon/Washington stock, consisting of
winter/spring populations in coastal
Central America and coastal Mexico
which migrate to the coast of California
to southern British Columbia in
summer/fall (Calambokidis et al. 1989;
Steiger et al. 1991; Calambokidis et al.
1993); (2) the Central North Pacific
stock, consisting of winter/spring
populations of the Hawaiian Islands
which migrate primarily to northern
British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the
Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands (Perry et al. 1990;
Calambokidis et al. 1997); and (3) the
Western North Pacific stock, consisting
of winter/spring populations off Asia
which migrate primarily to Russia and
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. The
Central North Pacific stock is the only
stock that is found near the project area.
On September 8, 2016, NMFS
published a final decision changing the
status of humpback whales under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (81 FR
62259), effective October 11, 2016.
Previously, humpback whales were
listed under the ESA as an endangered
species worldwide. In the 2016
decision, NMFS recognized the
existence of 14 distinct population
segments (DPSs), classified four of those
as endangered and one as threatened,
and determined that the remaining nine
DPSs do not warrant protection under
the ESA. Whales occurring in the
project area would primarily include
individuals from the delisted Hawaii
DPS (93.9 percent probability), but
could also include individuals from the
threatened Mexico DPS (6.1 percent
probability) (Wade et al. 2016).
Humpback whales are found
throughout southeast Alaska in a variety
of marine environments, including
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64546
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
open-ocean, near-shore waters, and
areas with strong tidal currents
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). Humpback
whales generally arrive in southeast
Alaska in March and return to their
wintering grounds in November. Some
humpback whales depart late or arrive
early to feeding grounds, and therefore
the species occurs in southeast Alaska
year-round (Straley 1990). Dahlheim et
al. (2009) observed humpback whales
throughout all major waterways in
southeast Alaska with concentrations of
whales consistently observed in Icy
Strait, Lynn Canal, Stephens Passage,
Chatham Strait, and Frederick Sound.
Mean group size varied among season
with group sizes of 1.38, 1.65, and 1.95
in spring, summer, and fall respectively.
Subsistence hunters in Alaska are not
authorized to take Central North Pacific
stock humpback whales and no takes
were reported from 2012–2016 (Muto et
al. 2018). Threats to the Central North
Pacific stock include changes in prey
distribution due to climate change,
entanglement in fishing gear, ship
strike, and anthropogenic sound,
however the Central North Pacific stock
is increasing (Muto et al. 2018).
Minke Whale
Minke whales are found throughout
the northern hemisphere in polar,
temperate, and tropical waters. In the
North Pacific, minke whales occur from
the Bering and Chukchi seas south to
near the Equator (Leatherwood et al.
1982). Minke whales are generally
found in coastal waters shallower than
200 m and are usually observed solitary
or in small groups of two to three
whales (Zerbini et al. 2006; Zerbini et
al. 2006). In Alaska, there is only one
stock of minke whales and seasonal
movements are associated with feeding
areas that are generally located at the
edge of the pack ice (NMFS 2014).
Although no comprehensive
abundance estimate is available for the
Alaska stock of minke whales, recent
surveys provide estimates for portions
of the stock’s range. A 2010 survey
conducted on the eastern Bering Sea
shelf produced a provisional abundance
estimate of 2,020 (CV = 0.73) whales
(Friday et al. 2013). This estimate is
considered provisional because it has
not been corrected for animals missed
on the trackline, animals submerged
when the ship passed, or responsive
movement. Additionally, line-transect
surveys were conducted in shelf and
nearshore waters (within 30–45 nautical
miles of land) in 2001–2003 between the
Kenai Peninsula (150° W) and Amchitka
Pass (178° W). Minke whale abundance
was estimated to be 1,233 (CV = 0.34)
for this area (also not corrected for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
animals missed on the trackline)
(Zerbini et al. 2006). The majority of the
sightings were in the Aleutian Islands,
rather than in the Gulf of Alaska, and in
water shallower than 200 m. 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.
Surveys in southeast Alaska have
consistently identified individuals
throughout inland waters in low
numbers, however none were observed
in Taiya Inlet or Lynn Canal (Dahlheim
et al. 2009). As few minke whales were
observed during recent offshore Gulf of
Alaska surveys for cetaceans in 2009,
2013, and 2015, a population estimate
for minke whales in this area cannot be
determined (Rone et al. 2017). There are
no data available to determine trends in
minke whale abundance in Alaska
waters. Subsistence takes of minke
whales in Alaska is rare, with the last
known catch occurring in 1989.
Although no incidents of human-related
serious injury and mortality were
recorded for Alaska stock minke whales
between 2012 and 2016, threats to the
population include entanglement in
fishing gear, ship strikes, and
anthropogenic sound, as well as changes
in prey distribution due to climate
change (Muto et al. 2018).
Killer Whale
Killer whales have been observed in
all oceans and seas of the world, but the
highest densities occur in colder and
more productive waters found at high
latitudes. Killer whales are found
throughout the North Pacific, and occur
along the entire Alaska coast, in British
Columbia and Washington inland
waterways, and along the outer coasts of
Washington, Oregon, and California
(Muto et al. 2018). Based on data
regarding association patterns,
acoustics, movements, and genetic
differences, eight killer whale stocks are
now recognized in the Pacific Ocean: (1)
The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the
Northern Resident stock; (3) the
Southern Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of
Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient
stock; (6) the West Coast Transient
stock; and (7) the Offshore stock, and (8)
the Hawaii stock. Only the Alaska
Resident, Northern Resident, Gulf of
Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient, and West Coast Transient
stocks are considered in this analysis
because other stocks occur outside the
geographic area under consideration.
Any of these four stocks could be seen
in the action area; however, the Alaska
and Northern Resident stocks are most
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
likely to overlap with the project area
(Muto et al. 2018).
The Alaska Resident stock is found
from southeastern Alaska to the
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.
Intermixing of Alaska Residents have
been documented among the three
areas, at least as far west as the eastern
Aleutian Islands. The Northern Resident
stock occurs from Washington State
through part of southeastern Alaska.
The Northern Resident stock is a
transboundary stock, and includes killer
whales that frequent British Columbia,
Canada and southeastern Alaska
(Dahlheim et al. 1997; Ford et al. 2000).
The Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands,
and Bering Sea Transient stock occurs
mainly from Prince William Sound
through the Aleutian Islands and Bering
Sea. The West Coast Transient stock
includes animals that occur in
California, Oregon, Washington, British
Columbia and southeastern Alaska.
Transient killer whales occur in
smaller, less matrilineal groupings than
resident killer whales. They are also
more likely to rely on stealth tactics
when foraging, making fewer and less
conspicuous calls, and edging along
shorelines and around headlands in
order to hunt their prey, including,
Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and
smaller cetaceans, in highly coordinated
attacks (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011).
Residents often travel in much larger
and closer knit groups within which
they share any fish they catch.
Resident and transient killer whales
have been documented in the middle to
lower reaches of Lynn Canal, but not
within the upper reaches or in Taiya
Inlet (Dahlheim et al. 2009). Dahlheim
et al. (2009) frequently observed two
resident pods identified as AF and AG
pods (Alaska Resident stock) throughout
Icy Strait, Lynn Canal, Stephens
Passage, Frederick Sound and upper
Chatham Strait. The seasonality of
resident killer whales could not be
investigated statistically due to low
encounter rates and mean group size of
resident whales did not vary
significantly among seasons and ranged
from 19 to 33 individuals (Dahlheim et
al. 2009).
Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed
transient killer whales in all major
waterways, including Lynn Canal, in
open-strait environments, near-shore
waters, protected bays and inlets, and in
ice-laden waters near tidewater glaciers.
The transient killer whale mean group
size also did not vary with season and
ranged from four to six individuals in
Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Transient killer whale numbers were
highest in summer, with lower numbers
observed in spring and fall.
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
No reliable data on trends in
population abundance for the entire
Alaska Resident, Gulf of Alaska,
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient, and West Coast Transient
stocks of killer whales are unavailable
(Muto et al. 2018). The Northern
Resident stock is increasing with an
average 2.1 percent increase over a 36
year time period (Ellis et al. 2011).
There are no reports of subsistence
harvest of killer whales in Alaska,
however other threats to the stocks
include interactions with fisheries,
vessel collisions, and decreases in prey
abundance (Muto et al. 2018).
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise inhabits
temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters.
In the eastern North Pacific, harbor
porpoises range from Point Barrow,
Alaska, to Point Conception, California.
While harbor porpoise primarily
frequent coastal waters and occur most
frequently in waters less than 100 m
deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010), they may
occasionally be found in deeper offshore
waters. Within the inland waters of
Southeast Alaska, harbor porpoise
distribution is clumped, with greatest
densities observed in the Glacier Bay/
Icy Strait region, and near Zarembo and
Wrangell Islands and the adjacent
waters of Sumner Strait (Allen and
Angliss 2014). Group sizes were on
average between 1.37–1.59 animals (less
than 2) (Dahlheim et al. 2009; 2015).
In Alaska, harbor porpoises are
currently divided into three stocks,
based primarily on geography. These are
(1) the Southeast Alaska stock—
occurring from the northern border of
British Columbia to Cape Suckling,
Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock—
occurring from Cape Suckling to
Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea
stock—occurring throughout the
Aleutian Islands and all waters north of
Unimak Pass (Allen and Angliss 2014).
Only the Southeast Alaska stock is
considered in this analysis because it is
the only stock found in the project area.
No reports of subsistence harvest of
harbor porpoises from the Southeast
Alaska stock have been reported since
the early 1900s (Shelden et al.
2014).The total estimated annual level
of human-caused mortality and serious
injury for Southeast Alaska stock (n =
34) exceeds the calculated PBR of 8.9
porpoises. However because the
calculated PBR is based on surveys from
2010–2012 in only a portion of the
stock’s range (the inside water of
southeast Alaska), PBR is likely biased
low for the entire stock (Muto et al.
2018). Population trends and status of
this stock relative to its Optimum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Sustainable Population are currently
unknown.
Dall’s Porpoise
Dall’s porpoise are widely distributed
across the entire North Pacific Ocean.
They are found over the continental
shelf adjacent to the slope and over
deep (greater than 2,500 m) oceanic
waters and have been sighted
throughout the North Pacific as far north
as 65° N (Hall 1979; Buckland et al.
1993). The only apparent distribution
gaps in Alaska waters are upper Cook
Inlet and the shallow eastern flats of the
Bering Sea. They are present during all
months of the year in much of the
eastern North Pacific, although they
may make seasonal onshore-offshore
movements along the west coast of the
continental United States and winter
movements out of areas with ice (Hall
1979; Leatherwood and Fielding 1974;
Loeb 1972).
Currently one stock of Dall’s porpoise
is recognized in Alaskan waters (Muto
et al. 2018). Dahlheim et al. (2009)
observed Dall’s porpoise throughout
Southeast Alaska, but only observed
Dall’s porpoise in Lynn Canal as far
north as Haines, Alaska, about 15 miles
south of Skagway. Infrequent
observations (three to six) of Dall’s
porpoise have been observed in Taiya
Inlet during the early spring and late
fall, however they have not been
observed near the project site near the
Skagway waterfront (K. Gross, Never
Monday Charters, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
At present, there is no reliable
information on trends in abundance for
the Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise
(Muto et al. 2018). There are no
subsistence uses of this species (Muto et
al. 2018), however Dall’s porpoise are
vulnerable to fisheries-related
entanglement and injury and to physical
modifications of nearshore habitats
resulting from urban and industrial
development (including waste
management and nonpoint source
runoff), and noise (Linnenschmidt et al.
2013).
Pinnipeds
Steller Sea Lion
The Steller sea lion is the largest of
the eared seals (otariids), ranging along
the North Pacific Rim from northern
Japan to California, with centers of
abundance and distribution in the Gulf
of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Steller
sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to
rest and take refuge. They also gather on
well-defined, traditionally used
rookeries to pup and breed. These
habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64547
sand beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs
(Muto et al. 2018). Steller sea lion
populations that primarily occur west of
144° W (Cape Suckling, Alaska)
comprise the western Distinct
Population Segment (wDPS) or Western
U.S. stock, while all others comprise the
eastern DPS (eDPS) or Eastern U.S.
stock; however, there is regular
movement of both DPSs across this
boundary (Muto et al. 2018). Both of
these populations may occur in the
action area, however in Lynn Canal/
Taiya Inlet Steller sea lions are most
likely part of the eDPS/Eastern U.S.
stock. Based on the percent of branded
animals at Gran Point it is estimated
that 2 percent of the sea lions in the
project area are potentially from the
wDPS/Eastern U.S. stock (personal
communication, L. Jemison Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, 2017).
Steller sea lions were listed as
threatened range-wide under the ESA
on 26 November 1990 (55 FR 49204).
Steller sea lions were subsequently
partitioned into the western and eastern
DPSs in 1997, with the wDPS being
listed as endangered under the ESA and
the eDPS remaining classified as
threatened (62 FR 24345) until it was
delisted in November 2013. In August
1993, NMFS published a final rule
designating critical habitat for the
Steller sea lion as a 20-nautical mile
buffer around all major haul-outs and
rookeries, as well as associated
terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and
three large offshore foraging areas (50
CFR 226.202). There is no Steller sea
lion critical habitat located in the action
area.
Gran Point, which is located 24 mi (38
km) south of the project area, is the
closest year-round Steller sea lion
haulout. However, during the spring
eulachon run, a seasonal haulout site is
located on Taiya Point at the southern
tip of Taiya Inlet, approximately 11 mi
(18 km) from the project site. Twentyfive to 40 sea lions are estimated to use
this haulout for about three weeks
during spring run, during which they
frequently are observed in the inlet. The
eulachon run (which occurs for
approximately three to four weeks
during mid-March through May) in
Lynn Canal is important to Steller sea
lions for seasonal foraging. These
spawning aggregations of forage fish
provide densely aggregated, high-energy
prey for Steller sea lions (and harbor
seals) for brief time periods and
influence haulout use (Sigler et al. 2004;
Womble et al. 2005; Womble and Sigler
2006). The pre-spawning aggregations
and spawning season for many forage
fish species occur between March and
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64548
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
May in Southeast Alaska just prior to
the breeding season of sea lions (Pitcher
et al. 2001; Womble and Sigler 2006).
After May, Steller sea lion presence in
the project action area declines. During
surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003,
Womble et al. (2005) observed a
maximum of approximately 400 Steller
sea lions in the water at the mouth of
the Taiya River feeding on eulachon in
2003, but observed very few in the same
area in 2002. Steller sea lions have also
been observed in Lutak Inlet, a foraging
site closer to both Taiya Point and Gran
Point haulouts.
Steller sea lions are included in
Alaska subsistence harvests. The mean
annual subsistence take of Western U.S.
Steller sea lions was 203 from 2004–
2016, and the mean annual take of
Eastern U.S. Steller sea lions was 11
from 2005–2008 and 2012 (Muto et al.
2018). Entanglements in fishing gear
and marine debris, and interactions
with fishing gear are sources of
mortality and serious injury for Steller
sea lions. The Eastern U.S. stock is
increasing with models indicating the
rate of increase as 4.76 percent per year
based on pup counts and 2.84 percent
per year based on non-pup counts (Muto
et al. 2018). Pup and non-pup counts of
Western U.S. stock Steller sea lions in
Alaska have increased 1.78 percent per
year and 2.14 per year respectively
between 2002 and 2017.
Only the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage
stock is considered in this analysis. The
stock range includes north along the
east and north coast of Admiralty Island
from the north end of Kupreanof Island
through Lynn Canal, including Taku
Inlet, Tracy Arm, and Endicott Arm
(Muto et al. 2018). The most current
(2007–2011) estimate of the population
trend for the stock is ¥176 seals per
year, with a probability that the stock is
decreasing of 0.71 (Muto et al. 2018).
Harbor seals are included in
subsistence harvests. Annual harvests
from the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage
in 2011 and 2012 were 50 animals each
year, which is higher than previous
estimates of 30 animals, on average, per
year from 2004–2008 (Muto et al. 2018).
Entanglement in fishing gear is also a
large contributor to their annual humancaused serious injury/mortality.
Additional information on the biology
and local distribution of these species
can be found in the NMFS Marine
Mammal Stock Assessment Reports,
which may be found at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
Harbor Seal
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
Harbor seals range from Baja
California north along the west coasts of the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Current data indicate
Washington, Oregon, California, British
that not all marine mammal species
Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g.,
through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince
Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok and
William Sound, and the Aleutian
Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To
Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to
reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
Cape Newenham and the Pribilof
Islands (Muto et al. 2018). They haul out recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups
on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting
based on directly measured or estimated
glacial ice, and feed in marine,
estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. hearing ranges on the basis of available
Harbor seals generally are nonmigratory, behavioral response data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
with local movements associated with
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
such factors as tides, weather, season,
other data. Note that no direct
food availability, and reproduction
measurements of hearing ability have
(Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952;
been successfully completed for
Bigg 1969, 1981; Hastings et al. 2004).
Harbor seals in Alaska are partitioned mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
into 12 separate stocks based largely on
described generalized hearing ranges for
genetic structure: (1) The Aleutian
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Islands stock, (2) the Pribilof Islands
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
stock, (3) the Bristol Bay stock, (4) the
based on the approximately 65 dB
North Kodiak stock, (5) the South
threshold from the normalized
Kodiak stock, (6) the Prince William
Sound stock, (7) the Cook Inlet/Shelikof composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowstock, (8) the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait
frequency cetaceans where the lower
stock, (9) the Lynn Canal/Stephens
bound was deemed to be biologically
Passage stock, (10) the Sitka/Chatham
implausible and the lower bound from
stock, (11) the Dixon/Cape Decision
stock, and (12) the Clarence Strait stock. Southall et al. (2007) retained. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note
that these frequency ranges correspond
to the range for the composite group,
with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every
species within that group):
• Low-frequency cetaceans
(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger
toothed whales, beaked whales, and
most delphinids): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans
(porpoises, river dolphins, and members
of the genera Kogia and
Cephalorhynchus; including two
members of the genus Lagenorhynchus,
on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true
seals): Generalized hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 50 Hz
to 86 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae
(eared seals): Generalized hearing is
estimated to occur between 60 Hz and
39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemilä et al. 2006; Kastelein et al.
2009; Reichmuth and Holt 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information. Seven marine
mammal species (five cetacean and two
pinniped (one otariid and one phocid)
species) have the reasonable potential to
co-occur with the proposed activities.
Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean
species that may be present, two are
classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all mysticete species), one is
classified as a mid-frequency cetacean
(i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species
and the sperm whale), and two are
classified as high-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section later in this
document includes a quantitative
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment section,
and the Proposed Mitigation section, to
draw conclusions regarding the likely
impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine
mammal species or stocks.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised
of both ambient and anthropogenic
sounds. Ambient sound is defined as
the all-encompassing sound in a given
place and is usually a composite of
sound from many sources both near and
far (ANSI 1994). The sound level of an
area is defined by the total acoustical
energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may
include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels,
dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al. 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
In-water construction activities
associated with the project would
include impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving and removal, and drilling.
The sounds produced by these activities
fall into one of two general sound types:
Impulsive and non-impulsive.
Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions,
gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
driving) are typically transient, brief
(less than 1 second), broadband, and
consist of high peak sound pressure
with rapid rise time and rapid decay
(ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005;
NMFS 2018). Non-impulsive sounds
(e.g. aircraft, machinery operations such
as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile
driving, and active sonar systems) can
be broadband, narrowband or tonal,
brief or prolonged (continuous or
intermittent), and typically do not have
the high peak sound pressure with raid
rise/decay time that impulsive sounds
do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS
2018). The distinction between these
two sound types is important because
they have differing potential to cause
physical effects, particularly with regard
to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall
et al. 2007).
Two types of pile hammers would be
used on this project: Impact and
vibratory. Impact hammers operate by
repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto
a pile to drive the pile into the substrate.
Sound generated by impact hammers is
characterized by rapid rise times and
high peak levels, a potentially injurious
combination (Hastings and Popper
2005). Vibratory hammers install piles
by vibrating them and allowing the
weight of the hammer to push them into
the sediment. Vibratory hammers
produce significantly less sound than
impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180
dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20
dB lower than SPLs generated during
impact pile driving of the same-sized
pile (Oestman et al. 2009). Rise time is
slower, reducing the probability and
severity of injury, and sound energy is
distributed over a greater amount of
time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002;
Carlson et al. 2005).
Drilling would be conducted using a
down-the-hole drill inserted through the
hollow steel piles. A down-the-hole
drill is a drill bit that drills through the
bedrock using a pulse mechanism that
functions at the bottom of the hole. This
pulsing bit breaks up rock to allow
removal of debris and insertion of the
pile. The head extends so that the
drilling takes place below the pile. The
pulsing sounds produced by the downthe-hole drilling method are continuous,
however this method likely increases
sound attenuation because the noise is
primarily contained within the steel pile
and below ground rather than impact
hammer driving methods which occur
at the top of the pile (R&M 2016).
The likely or possible impacts of
WP&YR’s proposed activity on marine
mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors could
result from the physical presence of the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64549
equipment and personnel; however, any
impacts to marine mammals are
expected to primarily be acoustic in
nature. Acoustic stressors include
effects of heavy equipment operation
during pile installation and removal and
drilling.
Acoustic Impacts
The introduction of anthropogenic
noise into the aquatic environment from
pile driving and removal and down-thehole drilling is the primary means by
which marine mammals may be
harassed from WP&YR’s specified
activity. In general, animals exposed to
natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience physical and psychological
effects, ranging in magnitude from none
to severe (Southall et al. 2007). In
general, exposure to pile driving and
drilling noise has the potential to result
in auditory threshold shifts and
behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance,
temporary cessation of foraging and
vocalizing, changes in dive behavior).
Exposure to anthropogenic noise can
also lead to non-observable
physiological responses such an
increase in stress hormones. Additional
noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can
mask acoustic cues used by marine
mammals to carry out daily functions
such as communication and predator
and prey detection. The effects of pile
driving and drilling noise on marine
mammals are dependent on several
factors, including, but not limited to,
sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. nonimpulsive), the species, age and sex
class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with
calf), duration of exposure, the distance
between the pile and the animal,
received levels, behavior at time of
exposure, and previous history with
exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall
et al. 2007). Here we discuss physical
auditory effects (threshold shifts)
followed by behavioral effects and
potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced
threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually
an increase, in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed
in dB. A TS can be permanent or
temporary. As described in NMFS
(2018), there are numerous factors to
consider when examining the
consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern
(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive),
likelihood an individual would be
exposed for a long enough duration or
to a high enough level to induce a TS,
the magnitude of the TS, time to
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64550
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to
days), the frequency range of the
exposure (i.e., spectral content), the
hearing and vocalization frequency
range of the exposed species relative to
the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e.,
how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g.,
Kastelein et al. 2014b), and the overlap
between the animal and the source (e.g.,
spatial, temporal, and spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)—
NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals
indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al.
1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al.
1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996;
Henderson et al. 2008). PTS levels for
marine mammals are estimates, as with
the exception of a single study
unintentionally inducing PTS in a
harbor seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are
no empirical data measuring PTS in
marine mammals largely due to the fact
that, for various ethical reasons,
experiments involving anthropogenic
noise exposure at levels inducing PTS
are not typically pursued or authorized
(NMFS 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A
temporary, reversible increase in the
threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual’s
hearing range above a previously
established reference level (NMFS
2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS
measurements (see Southall et al. 2007),
a TTS of 6 dB is considered the
minimum threshold shift clearly larger
than any day-to-day or session-tosession variation in a subject’s normal
hearing ability (Schlundt et al. 2000;
Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As
described in Finneran (2016), marine
mammal studies have shown the
amount of TTS increases with
cumulative sound exposure level
(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At
low exposures with lower SELcum, the
amount of TTS is typically small and
the growth curves have shallow slopes.
At exposures with higher higher SELcum,
the growth curves become steeper and
approach linear relationships with the
noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious (similar to those discussed in
auditory masking, below). For example,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that takes place during
a time when the animal is traveling
through the open ocean, where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts. We
note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as
humans and other taxa (Southall et al.
2007), so we can infer that strategies
exist for coping with this condition to
some degree, though likely not without
cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise
(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five
species of pinnipeds exposed to a
limited number of sound sources (i.e.,
mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS
was not observed in trained spotted
(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa
hispida) seals exposed to impulsive
noise at levels matching previous
predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et
al. 2016). In general, harbor seals and
harbor porpoises have a lower TTS
onset than other measured pinniped or
cetacean species (Finneran 2015).
Additionally, the existing marine
mammal TTS data come from a limited
number of individuals within these
species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine
mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see
Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and
Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles
requires a combination of impact pile
driving, vibratory pile driving, and
down-the-hole drilling. For the project,
these activities would not occur at the
same time and there would likely be
pauses in activities producing the sound
during each day. Given these pauses
and that many marine mammals are
likely moving through the action area
and not remaining for extended periods
of time, the potential for TS declines.
Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to
noise from pile driving and removal and
drilling also has the potential to
behaviorally disturb marine mammals.
Available studies show wide variation
in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a
marine mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone
the stock or population. However, if a
sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005).
Disturbance may result in changing
durations of surfacing and dives,
number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out
time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006).
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and
any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g.,
species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state,
auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et
al. 2003; Southall et al. 2007; Weilgart
2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral
reactions can vary not only among
individuals but also within an
individual, depending on previous
experience with a sound source,
context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary
depending on characteristics associated
with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of
sources, distance from the source). In
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant
of, or at least habituate more quickly to,
potentially disturbing underwater sound
than do cetaceans, and generally seem
to be less responsive to exposure to
industrial sound than most cetaceans.
Please see Appendices B–C of Southall
et al. (2007) for a review of studies
involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al. 2001; Nowacek et al.
2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et
al. 2007). A determination of whether
foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
In 2016, the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) documented observations
of marine mammals during construction
activities (i.e., pile driving and downhole drilling) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock
(see 80 FR 60636 for Final IHA Federal
Register notice). In the marine mammal
monitoring report for that project (ABR
2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were
observed within the Level B disturbance
zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e.,
documented as Level B harassment
take). Of these, 19 individuals
demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were
fleeing, and 19 swam away from the
project site. All other animals (98
percent) were engaged in activities such
as milling, foraging, or fighting and did
not change their behavior. In addition,
two sea lions approached within 20
meters of active vibratory pile driving
activities. Three harbor seals were
observed within the disturbance zone
during pile driving activities; none of
them displayed disturbance behaviors.
Fifteen killer whales and three harbor
porpoise were also observed within the
Level B harassment zone during pile
driving. The killer whales were
travelling or milling while all harbor
porpoises were travelling. No signs of
disturbance were noted for either of
these species. Given the similarities in
activities and habitat and the fact the
same species are involved, we expect
similar behavioral responses of marine
mammals to the specified activity. That
is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be
temporary and localized (e.g., small area
movements). Monitoring reports from
other recent pile driving and down-thehole drilling projects in Alaska have
observed similar behaviors (for example,
the Biorka Island Dock Replacement
Project).
Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior
through masking, or interfering with, an
animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of
interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions,
prey detection, predator avoidance,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995).
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
and at similar or higher intensity, and
may occur whether the sound is natural
(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic
exploration) in origin. The ability of a
noise source to mask biologically
important sounds depends on the
characteristics of both the noise source
and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability,
direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g.,
sensitivity, frequency range, critical
ratios, frequency discrimination,
directional discrimination, age or TTS
hearing loss), and existing ambient
noise and propagation conditions.
Masking of natural sounds can result
when human activities produce high
levels of background sound at
frequencies important to marine
mammals. Conversely, if the
background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g. on a day with strong wind
and high waves), an anthropogenic
sound source would not be detectable as
far away as would be possible under
quieter conditions and would itself be
masked. Skagway Harbor contains an
active port of call for cruise ships and
hosts numerous recreational and
commercial vessels; therefore,
background sound levels in the harbor
are already elevated.
Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds
that occur near the project site could be
exposed to airborne sounds associated
with pile driving and removal and
down-the-hole drilling that have the
potential to cause behavioral
harassment, depending on their distance
from pile driving activities. Cetaceans
are not expected to be exposed to
airborne sounds that would result in
harassment as defined under the
MMPA.
Airborne noise would primarily be an
issue for pinnipeds that are swimming
or hauled out near the project site
within the range of noise levels elevated
above the acoustic criteria. We
recognize that pinnipeds in the water
could be exposed to airborne sound that
may result in behavioral harassment
when looking with their heads above
water. Most likely, airborne sound
would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in
relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could
cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit
changes in their normal behavior, such
as reduction in vocalizations, or cause
them to temporarily abandon the area
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64551
and move further from the source.
However, these animals would
previously have been ‘taken’ because of
exposure to underwater sound above the
behavioral harassment thresholds,
which are in all cases larger than those
associated with airborne sound. Thus,
the behavioral harassment of these
animals is already accounted for in
these estimates of potential take.
Therefore, we do not believe that
authorization of incidental take
resulting from airborne sound for
pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne
sound is not discussed further here.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
WP&YR construction activities at the
Railroad Dock could have localized,
temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat and their prey by increasing inwater sound pressure levels and slightly
decreasing water quality. Increased
noise levels may affect acoustic habitat
(see masking discussion above) and
adversely affect marine mammal prey in
the vicinity of the project area (see
discussion below). During impact pile
driving, elevated levels of underwater
noise would ensonify Taiya Inlet where
both fish and mammals occur and could
affect foraging success.
Construction activities are of short
duration and would likely have
temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat through increases in underwater
and airborne sound. These sounds
would not be detectable at the nearest
known Steller sea lion haulouts, and all
known harbor seal haulouts are well
beyond the maximum distance of
predicted in-air acoustical disturbance.
In-water pile driving, pile removal,
and drilling activities would also cause
short-term effects on water quality due
to increased turbidity. Local strong
currents are anticipated to disburse
suspended sediments produced by
project activities at moderate to rapid
rates depending on tidal stage. WP&YR
would employ standard construction
best management practices (BMPs; see
section 11 and Appendix B in
application), thereby reducing any
impacts. Therefore, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to
be discountable.
In-Water Construction Effects on
Potential Foraging Habitat
The area likely impacted by the
project is relatively small compared to
the available habitat in Lynn Canal/
Taiya Inlet (e.g., most of the impacted
area is limited to the northern and
western portions of Taiya Inlet) and
does not include any BIAs or ESAdesignated critical habitat. Pile
installation/removal and drilling may
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64552
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
temporarily increase turbidity resulting
from suspended sediments. Any
increases would be temporary,
localized, and minimal. WP&YR must
comply with state water quality
standards during these operations by
limiting the extent of turbidity to the
immediate project area. In general,
turbidity associated with pile
installation is localized to about a 25foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al.
1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be
close enough to the project pile driving
areas to experience effects of turbidity,
and any pinnipeds would be transiting
the area and could avoid localized areas
of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to
be discountable to marine mammals.
Furthermore, pile driving and removal
at the project site would not obstruct
movements or migration of marine
mammals.
Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish)
of the immediate area due to the
temporary loss of this foraging habitat is
also possible. The duration of fish
avoidance of this area after pile driving
stops is unknown, but a rapid return to
normal recruitment, distribution and
behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral
avoidance by fish of the disturbed area
would still leave significantly large
areas of fish and marine mammal
foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in
Lynn Canal/Taiya Inlet.
The duration of the construction
activities is relatively short. The
construction window is for a maximum
of 89 days and during each day,
construction activities would only occur
during daylight hours. Impacts to
habitat and prey are expected to be
minimal based on the short duration of
activities.
In-Water Construction Effects on
Potential Prey (Fish)—Construction
activities would produce continuous
(i.e., vibratory pile driving and downthe-hole drilling) and pulsed (i.e. impact
driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds
that are especially strong and/or
intermittent low-frequency sounds.
Short duration, sharp sounds can cause
overt or subtle changes in fish behavior
and local distribution. Hastings and
Popper (2005) identified several studies
that suggest fish may relocate to avoid
certain areas of sound energy.
Additional studies have documented
effects of pile driving on fish, although
several are based on studies in support
of large, multiyear bridge construction
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001,
2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). Sound
pulses at received levels of 160 dB may
cause subtle changes in fish behavior.
SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable
changes in behavior (Pearson et al.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
1992; Skalski et al. 1992). SPLs of
sufficient strength have been known to
cause injury to fish and fish mortality.
The most likely impact to fish from
pile driving and drilling activities at the
project area would be temporary
behavioral avoidance of the area. The
duration of fish avoidance of this area
after pile driving stops is unknown, but
a rapid return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior is anticipated.
In general, impacts to marine mammal
prey species are expected to be minor
and temporary due to the short
timeframe for the project.
Construction activities, in the form of
increased turbidity, have the potential
to adversely affect forage fish and
juvenile salmonid outmigratory routes
in the project area. Both herring and
salmon form a significant prey base for
Steller sea lions, herring is a primary
prey species of humpback whales, and
both herring and salmon are
components of the diet of many other
marine mammal species that occur in
the project area. Increased turbidity is
expected to occur in the immediate
vicinity (on the order of 10 feet or less)
of construction activities. However,
suspended sediments and particulates
are expected to dissipate quickly within
a single tidal cycle. Given the limited
area affected and high tidal dilution
rates any effects on forage fish and
salmon are expected to be minor or
negligible. In addition, best management
practices would be in effect, which
would limit the extent of turbidity to the
immediate project area. Finally,
exposure to turbid waters from
construction activities is not expected to
be different from the current exposure;
fish and marine mammals in the Lynn
Canal/Taiya Inlet region are routinely
exposed to substantial levels of
suspended sediment from glacial
sources.
In summary, given the short daily
duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving and drilling
events and the relatively small areas
being affected, pile driving and drilling
activities associated with the proposed
action are not likely to have a
permanent, adverse effect on any fish
habitat, or populations of fish species.
Thus, we conclude that impacts of the
specified activity are not likely to have
more than short-term adverse effects on
any prey habitat or populations of prey
species. Further, any impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
result in significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine
mammals, or to contribute to adverse
impacts on their populations.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and
the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as use of the
impact and vibratory hammers and
down-the-hole drilling has the potential
to result in disruption of behavioral
patterns for individual marine
mammals. There is also some potential
for auditory injury (Level A harassment)
to result, primarily for low-frequency
cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans,
and/or phocids because predicted
auditory injury zones are larger than for
mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids.
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for
mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids.
The proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the severity of such taking to
the extent practicable. As described
previously, no mortality is anticipated
or proposed to be authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take
by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of
activities. We note that while these
basic factors can contribute to a basic
calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional
information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we
describe the factors considered here in
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
more detail and present the proposed
take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received
level of underwater sound above which
exposed marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally
harassed (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al.; 2007, Ellison et al. 2012). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
mammals are likely to be behaviorally
harassed in a manner we consider Level
B harassment when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. WP&YR’s
proposed activity includes the use of
continuous (vibratory pile driving/
removal and drilling) and impulsive
(impact pile driving) sources, and
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa
(rms) thresholds are applicable.
64553
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS
2018) identifies dual criteria to assess
auditory injury (Level A harassment) to
five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result
of exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). WP&YR’s proposed activity
includes the use of impulsive (impact
pile driving) and non-impulsive
(vibratory pile driving/removal and
drilling) sources.
These thresholds are provided in
Table 3. The references, analysis, and
methodology used in the development
of the thresholds are described in NMFS
2018 Technical Guidance, which may
be accessed at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ......................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk.flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,p, LF,24h: 183 dB ............................
LE,p, MF,24h: 185 dB ...........................
LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB .............................
LE,p,PW,24h: 185 dB ............................
LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB ............................
LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,p, HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,p,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound
has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended
for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards
(ISO 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing
range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying
exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these
thresholds will be exceeded.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that will feed into identifying the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, which include source levels
and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is
the existing background noise plus
additional construction noise from the
proposed project. Marine mammals are
expected to be affected via sound
generated by the primary components of
the project (i.e., impact pile driving,
vibratory pile driving and removal and
down-the-hole drilling). The maximum
(underwater) ensonification area of 17.9
km 2 due to project activities is governed
by the topography of Taiya Inlet (see
Figure 6 in the application). The eastern
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
shoreline of the inlet is acoustically
shadowed due to land located just south
of the proposed project site. Similarly,
Yakutania Point and Dyea Point would
inhibit transmission of project sounds
from reaching Nahku Bay and the upper
inlet at the mouth of the Taiya River.
Additionally, vessel traffic and other
commercial and industrial activities in
the project area may contribute to
elevated background noise levels which
may mask sounds produced by the
project.
In order to calculate distances to the
Level A and Level B harassment
thresholds for piles of various sizes
being used in this project, NMFS used
acoustic monitoring data from other
locations. Note that piles of differing
sizes have different sound source levels.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Empirical data from recent sound
source verification (SSV) studies in
Anchorage and Kodiak, Alaska were
used to estimate sound source levels
(SSLs) for impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving/removal, and down-thehole drilling installations of the 42-inch
steel pipe permanent piles and the 36inch steel pipe template piles (Austin et
al. 2016; Denes et al. 2016). These
Alaskan construction sites were
generally assumed to best represent the
environmental conditions found in
Skagway and represent the nearest
available source level data for 42-inch
steel piles.
Tables 4 provides the sound source
values used in calculating harassment
isopleths for each source type. No data
are currently available for 42-inch steel
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64554
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
pipe piles. For impact and vibratory
hammer source levels WP&YR used the
median levels measured by Austin et al.
(2016) during installation of 48-inch
piles at Port of Anchorage (197.9 and
166.8 dB re 1 mPa (rms at 11 m)). These
levels measured by Denes et al. (2016)
during drilling down the center of 30inch piles in Kodiak (171 dB re 1 mPa
(rms at 10 m)).
48-inch pile impact and vibratory levels
are conservatively used for both the 42inch permanent piles and the 36-inch
template piles. Little SSL data are
available for down-the-hole drilling.
WP&YR used the 90th percentile source
TABLE 4—SOURCE LEVELS AND ANTICIPATED DAILY DURATIONS FOR UNDERWATER SOUND CALCULATIONS
[Hours or strikes per day represents the maximum duration of any single activity]
Source
type
Source
Template Piles
Vibratory Installation/Removal
Impact Installation ...................
Drilling Installation ...................
Permanent Piles
Vibratory Installation ................
Impact Installation ...................
Drilling Installation ...................
SPLPK
(dB)
SPLRMS
(dB)
SELS–S (dB)
Hours or
strikes per day
Non-impulsive, continuous ............
Impulsive, intermittent ...................
Non-impulsive, continuous ............
n/a
212.5
n/a
166.8
197.9
171.0
n/a
186.7
n/a
3 hours.
2,000 strikes.
6 hours.
Non-impulsive, continuous ............
Impulsive, intermittent ...................
Non-impulsive, continuous ............
n/a
212.5
n/a
166.8
197.9
171.0
n/a
186.7
n/a
8 hours.
2,000 strikes.
8 hours.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease
in acoustic intensity as an acoustic
pressure wave propagates out from a
source. TL parameters vary with
frequency, temperature, sea conditions,
current, source and receiver depth,
water depth, water chemistry, and
bottom composition and topography.
The general formula for underwater TL
is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
Where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical
spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement
A practical spreading value of fifteen is
often used under conditions, such as at
the WP&YR Railroad Dock, where water
increases with depth as the receiver
moves away from the shoreline,
resulting in an expected propagation
environment that would lie between
spherical and cylindrical spreading loss
conditions. Practical spreading loss is
assumed here.
When the NMFS Technical Guidance
(2016) was published, in recognition of
the fact that ensonified area/volume
could be more technically challenging
to predict because of the duration
component in the new thresholds, we
developed a User Spreadsheet that
includes tools to help predict a simple
isopleth that can be used in conjunction
with marine mammal density or
occurrence to help predict takes. We
note that because of some of the
assumptions included in the methods
used for these tools, we anticipate that
isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree,
which may result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A harassment
take. However, these tools offer the best
way to predict appropriate isopleths
when more sophisticated 3D modeling
methods are not available, and NMFS
continues to develop ways to
quantitatively refine these tools, and
will qualitatively address the output
where appropriate. For stationary
sources such as pile driving and
drilling, NMFS User Spreadsheet
predicts the closest distance at which, if
a marine mammal remained at that
distance (or greater) the whole duration
of the activity, it would not incur PTS.
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and
the resulting isopleths are reported in
Tables 5 and 6. As WP&YR plans to
employ two continuous sound sources
(vibratory pile driving and drilling) it is
necessary to account for accumulation
of sound caused by both activities
during the full 10 hour work day when
calculating Level A harassment
isopleths. As drilling has the higher
sound pressure level we propose to use
drilling to calculate the Level A
harassment isopleths for both drilling
and vibratory pile driving activities
(Table 5). For impact pile driving,
isopleths calculated using the SELCUM
metric will be used as it produces larger
isopleths than SPLPK. Isopleths for Level
B harassment associated with impact
pile driving (160 dB) and vibratory pile
driving/removal and drilling (120 dB)
were also calculated and are can be
found in Table 6.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
Parameter
Impact pile driving
Spreadsheet Tab Used ......................................
Source Level ......................................................
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ...................
Number of strikes per day ..................................
Activity Duration (h) within 24-hour period .........
Propagation (xLogR) ..........................................
Distance of source level measurement (meters)
E.1) Impact pile driving ....................................
186.7 dB SEL ...................................................
2 .......................................................................
2,000 ................................................................
N/A ...................................................................
15LogR .............................................................
11 .....................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Vibratory pile driving and drilling
A.1) Drilling/Vibratory pile driving.
171 dB rms.
2.
N/A.
10 hours.
15LogR.
10.
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64555
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 6—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS DURING PILE
INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL AND DRILLING
Level A
harassment
zone
(meters)
Source
Lowfrequency
cetacean
Drilling and Vibratory Installation .........
Impact Installation ................................
Midfrequency
cetacean
148
3,077.2
8.3
109.4
Source ..................................................
129.7
3,665.4
Phocid
pinniped
Otariid
pinniped
79.2
1,646.8
Cetaceans
and pinnipeds
5.8
119.9
1 13,000
n/a
............................
3,698.8
PTS Onset Isopleth—Peak (meters)
Impact Installation ................................
1 Based
Highfrequency
cetacean
Level B
harassment
zone
(meters)
4.1
n/a
55.1
4.7
on maximum distance before landfall. Calculated distance was 25.1 km.
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals
that will inform the take calculations,
and how this information is brought
together to produce a quantitative take
estimate.
Density information is not available
for marine mammals in the project area
in Taiya Inlet. Potential exposures to
impact and vibratory pile driving noise
for each threshold for all other marine
mammals were estimated using
published reports of group sizes and
population estimates, and anecdotal
observational reports from local
commercial entities. For several species,
it is not currently possible to identify all
observed individuals to stock.
Level B Harassment Calculations
The estimation of takes by Level B
harassment uses the following
calculation:
Level B harassment estimate = N
(number of animals in the ensonified
area) * Number of days of noise
generating activities.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are the most
commonly observed baleen whale in
Southeast Alaska, particularly during
spring and summer months. Humpback
whales in Alaska, although not limited
to these areas, return to specific feeding
locations such as Frederick Sound,
Chatham Strait, North Pass, Sitka
Sound, Glacier Bay, Point Adolphus,
and Prince William Sound, as well as
other similar coastal areas (Wing and
Krieger 1983). In Lynn Canal they have
been observed in the spring and fall
from Haines to Juneau, however
scientific surveys have not documented
the species within Taiya Inlet
(Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Local observations indicate that
humpback whales are not common in
the project action area but, if they are
sighted, are generally present during
mid to late spring and vacate the area by
July to follow large aggregations of
forage fish in lower Lynn Canal. Local
observers have reported humpback
whales in Taiya Inlet, sometimes fairly
close to the Skagway waterfront. Due to
seasonal migration patterns, the low
frequency of humpbacks in the area, and
that no humpback whales have been
reported during winter months it is
anticipated that no humpback whales
will be present in the project area in
February. On average, four to five
individuals may occur near Skagway
during the spring eulachon run in April
and May, after which, only a few
individuals are observed throughout the
summer. In 2015, only one whale was
observed (for several) weeks close to
Skagway (K. Gross, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
Based on humpback whale occurrence
in the project area and local
observations, it is estimated that four
individuals may be present in the action
area each day during April, coinciding
with 30 days of project activity (120
exposures). As it is unclear whether
humpback whales occur in the inlet in
March (for example, should the
eulachon run begin early), it is
conservatively estimated that one whale
might be found in the inlet during that
month for five days (0.16 whales per
day, 5 exposures), for an overall total of
125 exposures (Table 7).
TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKES OF HUMPBACK WHALES PER MONTH
Animals in
inlet per day
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Month
Days in
month
Exposures
February .......................................................................................................................................
March ...........................................................................................................................................
April ..............................................................................................................................................
0
0.16
4
28
31
30
0
5
120
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
125
Minke Whale
Minke whales are rarely observed in
the project area, and scientific surveys
have not documented the species within
Taiya Inlet (Dahlheim et al. 2009). A
single minke whale was observed in the
inlet in 2015 (K. Gross, Never Monday
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Charters, personal communication; R.
Ford, Taiya Inlet Watershed Council,
both personal communications reported
in MOS 2016), and is the only known
record of a minke whale in Taiya Inlet.
However one minke whale was reported
by local observers in the action area in
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2015. Based on the available
information it is very unlikely minke
whales will be present in the inlet,
however, minke whale presence is
possible based on a single sighting and
presence of potential prey (eulachon) in
the spring. Thus, we estimate a total of
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64556
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
two potential exposures of minke
whales.
Killer Whale
Although killer whale stocks’ ranges
include southeast Alaska, they have
only been documented as far north as
Lynn Canal; therefore, while possible,
occurrence north of Lynn Canal into
Taiya Inlet is rare. According to local
observations, pods of resident killer
whales are occasionally seen in Taiya
Inlet. Local observations indicate killer
whales are observed four or five times
a year (between spring and fall) usually
in a group of 15 to 20 whales. In 2015
a resident pod was only observed in
Taiya Inlet twice, remaining for one to
four days per visit (K. Gross, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
There is no evidence of transient whales
occurring within Taiya Inlet. While the
resident pods remain in Alaska yearround there are no reports of sightings
during winter months (January–
February) in Taiya Inlet so it is assumed
no killer whales will be present in the
project area in February. Based on local
observations in the project area in the
spring, it is assumed that a group of 20
whales may enter the project area once
in each of March and April and remain
within the inlet for two days each time,
for a total of 80 potential exposures.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are primarily found
in coastal waters, and in the Gulf of
Alaska and Southeast Alaska, they occur
most frequently in waters less than 100
meters (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Dedicated research studies of harbor
porpoise in the project area only occur
as far north in Lynn Canal as Haines
during the summer (Dahlheim et al.
2009; 2015), approximately 16 miles
south of Skagway. Group sizes were, on
average, between 1.37–1.59 animals
(less than 2) (Dahlheim et al. 2009;
2015). In Lynn Canal, observations were
less frequent, primarily in lower Lynn
Canal from Chatham Strait to Juneau,
though harbor porpoises have been
observed as far north as Haines during
the summer (Dahlheim et al. 2009;
2015).
Despite lack of observations during
dedicated surveys, local charter captains
indicate that harbor porpoises
commonly occur in small groups of two
or three in Taiya Inlet, although they are
not encountered on a daily basis and are
rarely seen in areas close to the
waterfront (K. Gross, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
Therefore, it is conservatively estimated
that one group of three individuals may
be present in the inlet 75 percent of the
days during each month (or 2.25
porpoises per day on average) for a total
of 201 potential exposures (Table 8).
TABLE 8—ESTIMATED TAKES OF HARBOR PORPOISES PER MONTH
Animals in
inlet per day
Month
Days in
month
Exposures
February .......................................................................................................................................
March ...........................................................................................................................................
April ..............................................................................................................................................
2.25
2.25
2.25
28
31
30
63
70
68
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
201
Dall’s Porpoise
Dall’s porpoises are widely
distributed across the entire North
Pacific Ocean. Throughout most of the
eastern North Pacific they are present
during all months of the year, although
there may be seasonal onshore-offshore
movements along the west coast of the
continental United States and winter
movements of populations out of Prince
William Sound and areas in the Gulf of
Alaska and Bering Sea (Muto et al.
2018). Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed
Dall’s porpoise throughout Southeast
Alaska, with concentrations of animals
consistently found in Lynn Canal,
Stephens Passage, Icy Strait, upper
Chatham Strait, Frederick Sound, and
Clarence Strait. Dahlheim et al. (2009),
documented Dall’s porpoise in Lynn
Canal as far north as Haines, Alaska,
about 15 miles south of Skagway.
Local observation indicate that three
to six Dall’s porpoises may be present in
Taiya Inlet during the early spring and
late fall. Observations have been
occasional to sporadic and do not occur
on a daily basis. The species has not
been observed during winter months
and has not been observed near the
waterfront (K. Gross, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
The mean group size of Dall’s porpoise
in Southeast Alaska is estimated to be
3.7 individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Therefore, it is estimated that a group of
four Dall’s porpoises will be present in
the project area every other day in
March and April (2 per day), for a total
of 122 potential exposures (Table 9).
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED TAKES OF DALL’S PORPOISES PER MONTH
Animals in
inlet per day
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Month
Days in
month
Exposures
February .......................................................................................................................................
March ...........................................................................................................................................
April ..............................................................................................................................................
0
2
2
28
31
30
0
62
60
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
122
Steller Sea Lion
Several long-term Steller sea lion
haulouts are located in Lynn Canal,
however none occur in Taiya Inlet. The
nearest long-term Steller sea lion
haulout is located at Gran Point, south
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
of Haines and 24 mi (38 km) south of
the project area. Other year-round
haulouts in Lynn Canal are present at
Met Point, Benjamin Island, and Little
Island, closer to Juneau (Fritz et al.
2015). Observations from local charter
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
boat captains and watershed stewards
indicate Steller sea lions can be
abundant in the action area, particularly
in April and May during the eulachon
run, but are rarely observed in the
project area during the winter (K. Gross,
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64557
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
Never Monday Charters, personal
communication; R. Ford, Taiya Inlet
Watershed Council, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
This is consistent with the National
Marine Mammal Laboratory database
(Fritz et al. 2015), which has identified
the largest number of Lynn Canal sea
lions during the fall and winter months
at Benjamin Island in the lower reaches
of the canal. During surveys conducted
in 2002 and 2003, Womble et al. (2005)
observed a maximum of approximately
400 Steller sea lions in the water at the
mouth of the Taiya River feeding on
eulachon in 2003, but observed very few
in the same area in 2002. Steller sea
lions have also been observed in Lutak
Inlet, a foraging site closer to both Taiya
Point and Gran Point haulouts.
During the spring eulachon run, a
seasonal haulout site is located on Taiya
Point at the southern tip of Taiya Inlet,
approximately 11 mi (18 km) from the
project site. Twenty-five to 40 sea lions
are estimated to use this haulout for
about three weeks during spring run,
during which they frequently are
observed in the inlet (K. Gross, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
However, most animals leave the inlet
shortly after the eulachon run and are
rarely observed in the summer. Based
on survey data and local observations in
the project area, it is estimated that two
animals may be present each day in
February, 16 animals may be present on
each day in March (half of the mean
found on Taiya Rocks during the
eulachon run), and 40 animals may be
present each day in April for a total of
1,032 potential exposures (Table 10).
TABLE 10—ESTIMATED TAKES OF STELLER SEA LIONS PER MONTH
Animals in
inlet per day
Month
Days in
month
Exposures
February .......................................................................................................................................
March ...........................................................................................................................................
April ..............................................................................................................................................
2
16
40
28
31
30
56
496
1,200
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
1,752
Harbor Seal
No long-term haulout sites have been
documented for harbor seals in Taiya
Inlet; however, seasonal haulouts are
present within six miles of the project
area at Seal Cove and at the mouth of
the Taiya River. Based on reports from
local observers, a few resident harbor
seals are expected to occur within Taiya
Inlet during the winter months, but
during the April and May eulachon run
numbers can range from 20 to over 100
(K. Gross and R. Ford, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016).
Before and after the spawning run,
much lower numbers of harbor seals are
present.
Based on survey data and local
observations in the project area it is
assumed that 20 seals (the lower
estimate in the range) occur within the
project area each day in February
through March (560 takes in February
and 620 takes in March) and 100 seals
(the higher estimate in the range) during
April (3,000 takes) for a total of 4,180
potential exposures (Table 11).
TABLE 11—ESTIMATED TAKES OF HARBOR SEALS PER MONTH
Animals in
inlet per day
Month
Takes
February .......................................................................................................................................
March ...........................................................................................................................................
April ..............................................................................................................................................
20
20
100
28
31
30
560
620
3,000
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
4,180
Level A Harassment Calculations
WP&YR intends to avoid Level A
harassment take by shutting down
installation activities at approach of any
marine mammal to the representative
Level A harassment (PTS onset)
ensonification zone up to a practical
shutdown monitoring distance. As
small/cryptic marine mammal species
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Days in
month
may enter the Level A harassment zone
before shutdown mitigation procedures
can be implemented, and some animals
may occur between the maximum Level
A harassment ensonification zone and
the maximum shutdown safety zone, we
conservatively estimate that 20 percent
of the Level B harassment takes
calculated above for humpback whales,
harbor porpoises, Dall’s porpoises, and
harbor seals, have the potential to be
takes by Level A harassment (Table 12).
Minke whale occurrence in Taiya Inlet
is rare. Because vessel-based PSO are
able to monitoring the entire Level A
harassment zone (whales entering the
inlet), WP&YR did not request, and
NMFS is not proposing, to authorize
Level A harassment take of minke
whales.
TABLE 12—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK, RESULTING FROM
PROPOSED WP&YR PROJECT ACTIVITIES
Stock
abundance 1
Common name
Stock
Humpback whale ................
Minke Whale .......................
Central North Pacific ..........
Alaska .................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Level A
210,103
N/A
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total
proposed take
Level B
25
0
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
100
2
17DEN1
125
2
Proposed
take as
percentage
of stock
1.23
N/A
64558
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
TABLE 12—ESTIMATED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK, RESULTING FROM
PROPOSED WP&YR PROJECT ACTIVITIES—Continued
Stock
abundance 1
Common name
Stock
Killer whale ..........................
Alaska Resident .................
Northern Resident ..............
Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Transient.
West Coast Transient .........
Southeast Alaska ...............
Alaska .................................
Western U.S .......................
Eastern U.S ........................
Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage.
Harbor porpoise ..................
Dall’s porpoise ....................
Steller sea lion ....................
Harbor seal .........................
Level A
2,347
261
587
243
975
83,400
54,267
41,638
9,478
Total
proposed take
Level B
0
80
80
40
24
0
0
836
161
98
335
1,717
3,344
201
122
35
1,717
4,180
Proposed
take as
percentage
of stock
3.4
30.6
13.6
32.9
20.6
0.01
0.06
4.1
44.1
1 Stock
or DPS size is Nbest according to NMFS 2018 Draft Stock Assessment Reports.
ESA section 7 consultation purposes, 6.1 percent are designated to the Mexico DPS and the remaining are designated to the Hawaii
DPS; therefore, we assigned 2 Level B takes to the Mexico DPS.
3 Based on the percent of branded animals at Gran Point and in consultation with the Alaska Regional Office, we used a 2 percent distinction
factor to determine the number of animals potentially from the western DPS.
2 For
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
There are a number of reasons why
the estimates of potential incidents of
take are likely to be conservative. Given
the lack of density information, we use
conservative estimates of marine
mammal presence to calculate takes for
each species. Additionally, in the
context of stationary activities such as
pile driving, and in areas where resident
animals may be present, this number
represents the number of instances of
take that may occur to a small number
of individuals, with a notably smaller
number of animals being exposed more
than once per individual. While pile
driving or drilling can occur any day
throughout the in-water work window,
and the analysis is conducted on a per
day basis, only a fraction of that time is
actually spent pile driving. The
potential effectiveness of mitigation
measures in reducing the number of
takes is also not quantified in the take
estimation process. For these reasons,
these take estimates may be
conservative, especially if each take is
considered a separate individual
animal, and especially for pinnipeds.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on such species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses
(latter not applicable for this action).
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, we carefully consider two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood
of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) the practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
In addition to the measures described
later in this section, WP&YR will
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
employ the following standard
mitigation measures:
• Conduct briefings between
construction supervisors and crews and
the marine mammal monitoring team
prior to the start of all pile driving
activity, and when new personnel join
the work, to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and
operational procedures;
• For in-water heavy machinery work
other than pile driving (e.g., standard
barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes
within 10 m, operations shall cease and
vessels shall reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions.
This type of work could include the
following activities: (1) Movement of the
barge to the pile location; or (2)
positioning of the pile on the substrate
via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
• Work may only occur during
daylight hours, when visual monitoring
of marine mammals can be conducted;
• For those marine mammals for
which Level B harassment take has not
been requested, in-water pile
installation/removal and drilling will
shut down immediately if such species
are observed within or on a path
towards the monitoring zone (i.e., Level
B harassment zone); and
• If take reaches the authorized limit
for an authorized species, pile
installation will be stopped as these
species approach the Level B
harassment zone to avoid additional
take.
The following measures would apply
to WP&YR’s mitigation requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zone for
Level A Harassment—For all pile
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
driving/removal and drilling activities,
WP&YR would establish a shutdown
zone. 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). Conservative
shutdown zones of 150 m for low- and
high- frequency cetaceans, 80 m for
phocid pinnipeds, and 10 m for midfrequency cetaceans and otariid
pinnipeds would be used during all
drilling and vibratory pile driving/
removal activities to prevent incidental
Level A harassment exposure for these
activities (Table 13). During impact pile
driving a 150 m zone would be used for
all species except for low-frequency
cetacean for which a 2,000 m zone will
be used. These shutdown zones would
be used to prevent incidental Level A
exposures from impact pile driving for
mid-frequency cetaceans and otariid
pinnipeds, and to reduce the potential
for such take for other species (Table
13). The placement of Protected Species
Observers (PSOs) during all pile driving
64559
and drilling activities (described in
detail in the Monitoring and Reporting
Section) will ensure shutdown zones are
visible. The 150 m zone is the practical
distance WP&YR anticipates phocid
pinnipeds and high-frequency cetaceans
can be effectively observed in the
project area. The 2,000 m zone for lowfrequency cetaceans is determined by
the width of Taiya Inlet at Skagway
Harbor. Observers will be present on
vessels in the Taiya Inlet and able to
observe large whales traveling north
into the inlet and project area.
TABLE 13—MONITORING AND SHUTDOWN ZONES FOR EACH PROJECT ACTIVITY
Monitoring
zone
(m)
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Source
Drilling and Vibratory Installation/Removal .................................
13,000
Impact Installation .......................................................................
3,400
Establishment of Monitoring Zones for
Level B Harassment—WP&YR would
establish monitoring zones to correlate
with Level B disturbance zones or zones
of influence which are areas where SPLs
are equal to or exceed the 160 dB rms
threshold for impact driving and the 120
dB rms threshold during vibratory
driving and drilling. Monitoring zones
provide utility for observing by
establishing monitoring protocols for
areas adjacent to the shutdown zones.
Monitoring zones enable observers to be
aware of and communicate the presence
of marine mammals in the project area
outside the shutdown zone and thus
prepare for a potential cease of activity
should the animal enter the shutdown
zone. The proposed monitoring zones
are described in Table 13. The
monitoring zone for drilling and
vibratory pile driving/removal activities
is 13,000 m, corresponding to the
maximum distance before landfall.
Placement of PSOs on vessels in the
Taiya Inlet allow PSOs to observe
marine mammals traveling north into
the inlet and Skagway Harbor. Should
PSOs determine the monitoring zone
cannot be effectively observed in its
entirety, Level B harassment exposures
will be recorded and extrapolated based
upon the number of observed take and
the percentage of the Level B zone that
was not visible.
Soft Start—The use of soft-start
procedures are believed to provide
additional protection to marine
mammals by providing warning and/or
giving marine mammals a chance to
leave the area prior to the hammer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Shutdown zone
(m)
Low- and high- frequency cetaceans: 150.
Phocid pinnipeds: 80.
Mid-frequency cetaceans and otariid pinnipeds: 10.
Low-frequency cetaceans: 2,000.
All other species: 150.
operating at full capacity. For impact
pile driving, contractors would be
required to provide an initial set of
strikes from the hammer at reduced
energy, with each strike followed by a
30-second waiting period. This
procedure would be conducted a total of
three times before impact pile driving
begins. Soft start would be implemented
at the start of each day’s impact pile
driving and at any time following
cessation of impact pile driving for a
period of thirty minutes or longer. Soft
start is not required during vibratory
pile driving and removal activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the
start of daily in-water construction
activity, or whenever a break in pile
driving/removal or drilling of 30
minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will
observe the shutdown and monitoring
zones for a period of 30 minutes. The
shutdown zone will be cleared when a
marine mammal has not been observed
within the zone for that 30-minute
period. If a marine mammal is observed
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start
cannot proceed until the animal has left
the zone or has not been observed for 15
minutes. If the Level B harassment zone
has been observed for 30 minutes and
non-permitted species are not present
within the zone, soft start procedures
can commence and work can continue
even if visibility becomes impaired
within the Level B monitoring zone.
When a marine mammal permitted for
Level B take is present in the Level B
harassment zone, activities may begin
and Level B take will be recorded. As
stated above, if the entire Level B zone
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
is not visible at the start of construction,
piling or drilling activities can begin. If
work ceases for more than 30 minutes,
the pre-activity monitoring of both the
Level B and shutdown zone will
commence.
Due to the depth of the water column
and strong currents present at the
project site, bubble curtains would not
be implemented as they would not be
effective in this environment.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means effecting the least practicable
impact on the affected species or stocks
and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth,
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as to ensuring that
the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
64560
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density);
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted by
NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed from the best
vantage point(s) practicable to monitor
for marine mammals and implement
shutdown or delay procedures when
applicable through communication with
the equipment operator. Observer
training must be provided prior to
project start, and shall include
instruction on species identification
(sufficient to distinguish the species in
the project area), description and
categorization of observed behaviors
and interpretation of behaviors that may
be construed as being reactions to the
specified activity, proper completion of
data forms, and other basic components
of biological monitoring, including
tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound
exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after pile driving/removal and drilling
activities. In addition, observers shall
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
record all incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from
activity, and shall document any
behavioral reactions in concert with
distance from piles being driven or
removed. Pile driving/removal and
drilling activities include the time to
install or remove a single pile or series
of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
A total of five PSOs would be based
on land and vessels. During all pile
driving/removal and drilling activities
observers will be stationed at the
Railroad Dock, Yakutania Point, and
Dyea Point. These stations will allow
full monitoring of the impact hammer
monitoring zone and the Level A
shutdown zones. The vibratory and
drilling monitoring zone will be
additionally monitored using two PSOs
stationed on boats anchored near the
shoreline, with each team (vessel
operator and observer) stationed
approximately 2 km apart in the inlet
south of the project site (Figure 2 in the
WP&YR Marine Mammal Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan).
PSOs would scan the waters using
binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and
would use a handheld GPS or rangefinder device to verify the distance to
each sighting from the project site. All
PSOs would be trained in marine
mammal identification and behaviors
and are required to have no other
project-related tasks while conducting
monitoring. In addition, monitoring will
be conducted by qualified observers,
who will be placed at the best vantage
point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement
shutdown/delay procedures when
applicable by calling for the shutdown
to the hammer operator. WP&YR would
adhere to the following observer
qualifications:
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not
construction personnel) are required.
(ii) At least one observer must have
prior experience working as an observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute
education (degree in biological science
or related field) or training for
experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more
observers are required, one observer
shall be designated as lead observer or
monitoring coordinator. The lead
observer must have prior experience
working as an observer.
(v) WP&YR shall submit observer CVs
for approval by NMFS.
Additional standard observer
qualifications include:
• Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols Experience or
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the
identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including but not
limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid
potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals
observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior;
and
• Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
A draft marine mammal monitoring
report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
pile driving and removal and drilling
activities. It will include an overall
description of work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report must
include:
• Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring
during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (e.g., percent
cover, visibility);
• Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
tide state);
• Species, numbers, and, if possible,
sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable
marine mammal behavior patterns,
including bearing and direction of travel
and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities
to marine mammals and distance from
the marine mammals to the observation
point;
• Locations of all marine mammal
observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
If no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days, the draft final
report will constitute the final report. If
comments are received, a final report
addressing NMFS comments must be
submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments.
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such
as an injury, serious injury or mortality,
WP&YR would immediately cease the
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
specified activities and report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator.
The report would include the following
information:
• Description of the incident;
• Environmental conditions (e.g.,
Beaufort sea state, visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
• Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with WP&YR to
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. WP&YR would not be able
to resume their activities until notified
by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that WP&YR discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead PSO determines that the cause
of the injury or death is unknown and
the death is relatively recent (e.g., in
less than a moderate state of
decomposition as described in the next
paragraph), WP&YR would immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline
and/or by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinator. The report
would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above.
Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances
of the incident. NMFS would work with
WP&YR to determine whether
modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that WP&YR discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal and the
lead PSO determines that the injury or
death is not associated with or related
to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal,
carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage),
WP&YR would report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding
Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska
Regional Stranding Coordinator, within
24 hours of the discovery. WP&YR
would provide photographs, video
footage (if available), or other
documentation of the stranded animal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network.
Acoustic Monitoring
WP&YR will conduct acoustic
monitoring for the purposes of SSV.
WP&YR will collect acoustic data for at
least one 42-inch permanent pile, using
all three installation methods (impact
pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and
down-the-hole drilling) from at least
two distances from the pile (one
approximately 10 meters from the pile
and at least one additional measurement
in the far field). The following data, at
minimum, shall be collected during
acoustic monitoring and reported:
• Hydrophone equipment and
methods: recording device, sampling
rate, distance from the pile where
recordings were made; depth of
recording device(s);
• Type of pile (42-inch), and segment
of pile (1, 2, or 3), being driven and
method of driving/removal or drilling
during recordings; and
• Mean, median, maximum (or 90th
percentile), and range sound levels (dB
re 1mPa): cumulative sound exposure
level (SELCUM), peak sound pressure
level (SPLPK), root mean square sound
pressure level (SPLRMS), and singlestrike sound exposure level (SELS–S) as
appropriate for the sound source.
For more details please see WP&YR’s
acoustic monitoring plan, available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the
number, intensity, and context of
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64561
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’ implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Pile driving/removal and drilling
activities associated with the Railroad
Dock installation project as outlined
previously, have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
from underwater sounds generated from
pile driving and removal and down-thehole drilling. Potential takes could
occur if individuals of these species are
present in the ensonified zone when
these activities are underway.
The takes from Level A and Level B
harassment would be due to potential
behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS.
No mortality is anticipated given the
nature of the activity and measures
designed to minimize the possibility of
injury to marine mammals. Level A
harassment is only anticipated for
humpback whales, Dall’s porpoise,
harbor porpoise, and harbor seal. The
potential for harassment is minimized
through the construction method and
the implementation of the planned
mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
As described previously, minke
whales are considered rare in the
proposed project area and we have
proposed to authorize only nominal and
precautionary take of two individuals.
Therefore, we do not expect meaningful
impacts to minke whales and
preliminarily find that the total minke
whale take from each of the specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
For remaining species, we discuss the
likely effects of the specified activities
in greater detail. Effects on individuals
that are taken by Level B harassment, on
the basis of reports in the literature as
well as monitoring from other similar
activities, will likely be limited to
reactions such as increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or
decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff
2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma 2014; ABR
2016). Most likely, individuals will
simply move away from the sound
source and be temporarily displaced
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64562
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
from the areas of pile driving and
drilling, although even this reaction has
been observed primarily only in
association with impact pile driving.
The pile driving activities analyzed here
are similar to, or less impactful than,
numerous other construction activities
conducted in southeast Alaska, which
have taken place with no known longterm adverse consequences from
behavioral harassment. Level B
harassment will be reduced to the level
of least practicable adverse impact
through use of mitigation measures
described herein and, if sound produced
by project activities is sufficiently
disturbing, animals are likely to simply
avoid the area while the activity is
occurring. While vibratory driving and
drilling associated with the proposed
project may produce sound at distances
of many kilometers from the project site,
thus intruding on some habitat, the
project site itself is located in a busy
harbor and the majority of sound fields
produced by the specified activities are
close to the harbor. Therefore, we expect
that animals annoyed by project sound
would simply avoid the area and use
more-preferred habitats.
In addition to the expected effects
resulting from authorized Level B
harassment, we anticipate that
humpback whales, harbor porpoises,
Dall’s porpoises, and harbor seals may
sustain some limited Level A
harassment in the form of auditory
injury. However, animals in these
locations that experience PTS would
likely only receive slight PTS, i.e. minor
degradation of hearing capabilities
within regions of hearing that align most
completely with the energy produced by
pile driving, i.e. the low-frequency
region below 2 kHz, not severe hearing
impairment or impairment in the
regions of greatest hearing sensitivity. If
hearing impairment occurs, it is most
likely that the affected animal would
lose a few decibels in its hearing
sensitivity, which in most cases is not
likely to meaningfully affect its ability
to forage and communicate with
conspecifics. As described above, we
expect that marine mammals would be
likely to move away from a sound
source that represents an aversive
stimulus, especially at levels that would
be expected to result in PTS, given
sufficient notice through use of soft
start.
The project also is not expected to
have significant adverse effects on
affected marine mammals’ habitat. The
project activities would not modify
existing marine mammal habitat for a
significant amount of time. The
activities may cause some fish to leave
the area of disturbance, thus temporarily
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
impacting marine mammals’ foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the
foraging range; but, because of the short
duration of the activities and the
relatively small area of the habitat that
may be affected, the impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
cause significant or long-term negative
consequences.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
• Conduct the majority of pile
driving/removal and drilling work
outside of the eulachon run, minimizing
harassment of marine mammals during
important foraging times;
• The Level A harassment exposures
are anticipated to result only in slight
PTS, within the lower frequencies
associated with pile driving;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior
that would not result in fitness impacts
to individuals;
• The specified activity and
ensonification area is very small relative
to the overall habitat ranges of all
species and does not include habitat
areas of special significance (BIAs or
ESA-designated critical habitat); and
• The presumed efficacy of the
proposed mitigation measures in
reducing the effects of the specified
activity to the level of least practicable
adverse impact.
In addition, although affected
humpback whales and Steller sea lions
may be from a DPS that is listed under
the ESA, it is unlikely that minor noise
effects in a small, localized area of
habitat would have any effect on the
stocks’ ability to recover. In
combination, we believe that these
factors, as well as the available body of
evidence from other similar activities,
demonstrate that the potential effects of
the specified activities will have only
minor, short-term effects on individuals.
The specified activities are not expected
to impact rates of recruitment or
survival and will therefore not result in
population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares
the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of
abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether
an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
Table 12 demonstrates the number of
animals that could be exposed to
received noise levels that could cause
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment for the proposed work in the
WP&YR project area. With the exception
of the Northern Resident and West Coast
Transient killer whale stocks and harbor
seals, our analysis shows that less than
25 percent of each affected stock could
be taken by harassment. The numbers of
animals proposed to be taken for these
stocks would be considered small
relative to the relevant stock’s
abundances even if each estimated
taking occurred to a new individual—an
extremely unlikely scenario.
The total proposed authorized take for
killer whales as compared to each
potentially affected stock ranges from
3.4 percent to 32.9 percent of each stock
abundance. In reality, it is highly
unlikely that 80 individuals of any one
killer whale stock will be temporarily
harassed. Instead, it is assumed that
there will be a relatively brief period of
takes of a smaller number of the same
individuals from any stock (20, which is
representative of the estimated group
size, or 40, if individuals from the same
stock are taken), which would result in
smaller percentages of stocks (ranging
from 0.9 percent to 8.2 percent if 20
whales from the same stock, or 1.7
percent to 16.5 percent if 40 whales
from the same stock). We make this
assumption because the Alaska and
Northern resident stocks are known to
occasionally occur in Taiya Inlet, but
other stocks’ (e.g., transients) range
extends into the project area, and
therefore they may occur in the upper
reaches of Lynn Canal into Taiya Inlet
towards Skagway, albeit infrequently.
Takes are not assumed to include
multiple harassments of the same
individual(s), resulting in estimates of
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices
proposed take as a percentage of stock
abundance that are high compared to
actual take that will occur. This is the
case with the resident stocks of killer
whale and harbor seal (Lynn Canal/
Stephens Passage stock).
As reported, a small number of harbor
seals, most of which reside in Taiya
Inlet year-round, will be exposed to
construction activities for three months.
The total population estimate in the
Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock is
9,478 animals over 1.37 million acres
(5,500 km2) of area in their range, which
results in an estimated density of 36
animals within Taiya Inlet. The largest
Level B harassment zone within the
inlet occupies 17.9 km2, which
represents less than 0.4 percent of the
total geographical area occupied by the
stock. The great majority of these
exposures will be to the same animals
given their residency patterns.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species.
NMFS is proposing to authorize take
of the Steller sea lion western DPS and
humpback whale Mexico DPS, which
are listed under the ESA. On November
29, 2018, the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources has requested initiation of
section 7 consultation with the Alaska
Regional Office for the issuance of this
IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA
consultation prior to reaching a
determination regarding the proposed
issuance of the authorization.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this Notice of Proposed
IHA for the proposed action. We also
request comment on the potential for
renewal of this proposed IHA as
described in the paragraph below.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
help inform our final decision on the
request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a second one-year IHA without
additional notice when (1) another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Specified Activities
section is planned or (2) the activities
would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would
allow for completion of the activities
beyond that described in the Dates and
Duration section, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to expiration of
the current IHA.
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted beyond the initial dates
either are identical to the previously
analyzed activities or include changes
so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, take estimates, or
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action. The
proposed project will occur near but not
overlap with the subsistence area used
by the villages of Hoonah and Angoon
(Wolfe et al. 2013; N. Kovaces, Skagway
Traditional Council, personal
communication). Harbor seals and
Steller sea lions are available for
subsistence harvest in this area (Wolfe
et al. 2013). Therefore, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the total
taking of affected species or stocks
would not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this
case with the Alaska Regional Office,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:17 Dec 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to WP&YR for conducting the
Railroad Dock dolphin installation
project in Skagway, Alaska from
February 1, 2019 through April 30,
2019, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
A draft of the IHA itself is available for
review in conjunction with this notice
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mitigation and monitoring
requirements.
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
remain the same and appropriate, and
the original findings remain valid.
Dated: December 12, 2018.
Donna S. Weiting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–27258 Filed 12–14–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Request for Input on Crypto-Asset
Mechanics and Markets
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Request for input.
AGENCY:
Request for Public Comments
PO 00000
64563
The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or
‘‘CFTC’’) in furtherance of the LabCFTC
initiative is seeking public comment
and feedback on this Request for Input
(‘‘RFI’’) in order to better inform the
Commission’s understanding of the
technology, mechanics, and markets for
virtual currencies beyond Bitcoin,
namely here Ether and its use on the
Ethereum Network. The Commodity
Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) grants the
Commission regulatory authority over
the commodity futures markets. The
Commission is seeking public feedback
in furtherance of oversight of these
markets and regulatory policy
development. The input from this
request will advance the CFTC’s
mission of ensuring the integrity of the
derivatives markets as well as
monitoring and reducing systemic risk
by enhancing legal certainty in the
markets. The RFI seeks to understand
similarities and distinctions between
certain virtual currencies, including
here Ether and Bitcoin, as well as Etherspecific opportunities, challenges, and
risks. The Commission welcomes all
public comments on these and related
issues.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before February 15, 2019.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64541-64563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG628
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Railroad Dock Dolphin
Installation Project, Skagway, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from White Pass & Yukon Route
(WP&YR) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the
Railroad Dock dolphin installation project in Skagway, Alaska. Pursuant
to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA)
to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities.
NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-year renewal that
could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are
met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this
notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final
decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and
agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our
decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January
16, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to ITP.Piniak@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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 64542]]
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 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On August 21, 2018, NMFS received a request from WP&YR for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to the Railroad Dock dolphin
installation project in Skagway, Alaska. WP&YR submitted a revised
version of the application on November 9, 2018 which was deemed
adequate and complete on November 15, 2018. WP&YR's request is for take
of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and Level A
harassment incidental to impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving
and removal, and down-the-hole drilling activities. Neither WP&YR nor
NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. In-water activities (pile
installation and extraction) associated with the project are scheduled
to begin February 1, 2019, and be completed April 30, 2019.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
WP&YR requested the authorization of take of small numbers of
marine mammals incidental to pile driving/removal and down-the-hole
drilling associated with the installation of two new 200-ton pile
supported mooring dolphins in Skagway Harbor, Alaska. The purpose of
the project is to provide ample safe moorage when both Norwegian
Breakaway and Royal Caribbean Quantum class cruise ship vessels are in
port. The existing dolphin infrastructure does not allow for both
cruise ships to be moored at the dock at the same time. The additional
dolphins would allow for both ships to be docked simultaneously. To
facilitate dual mooring, the proposed project includes the installation
of two 200-ton dolphins, each comprised of six 42-inch steel permanent
piles 300 feet in length. WP&YR would also install and subsequently
remove 14 36-inch template (temporary) piles (200 feet in length) at
the two dolphin locations which are approximately 100 feet and 200
feet, respectively, south of the existing southernmost mooring dolphin
at the WP&YR Railroad Dock. The template and permanent piles are
comprised of two to three 100-feet long segments which would be spliced
(i.e., welded) together as they are installed. All temporary and
permanent piles would require a combination of three pile installation
methods: Vibratory driving, impact driving, and down-the-hole drilling.
Sounds produced by these activities may result in take, by Level A and
Level B harassment, of marine mammals located in Taiya Inlet, Alaska.
Dates and Duration
In-water activities (pile installation and extraction) associated
with the project are scheduled to begin February 1, 2019, and be
completed April 30, 2019. Pile installation and removal would occur for
89 days over the course of the three months. WP&YR anticipates up to 10
hours of activity (vibratory driving, impact driving, and down-the-hole
drilling) during daylight hours would occur per day.
Specific Geographic Region
The activities would occur at the south end of WP&YR's Railroad
Dock located in Skagway Harbor, Alaska. Skagway Harbor is located at
the southwestern end of the 2.5-mile (mi)-long Skagway River valley.
Three anadromous rivers are located near the project site including
Skagway River, Taiya River, and Pullen Creek. The Skagway and Taiya
Rivers empty into Taiya Inlet at the head of Lynn Canal west and
northwest of the project site respectively. Pullen Creek empties into
the Taiya Inlet on the southeast side of the valley northeast of the
project site. Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal is the northernmost fjord on the
Inside Passage of the south coast of Alaska. The project site is
located south of ADL 108521 and seaward of upland Lot 8, U.S. Survey
5110; Latitude 59.44[deg] North (N), Longitude 135.33[deg] West (W)
(see Figures 1-3 of WP&YR's application). Limited information is
available on the benthic habitat beneath the Railroad Dock, however the
basin is composed of glacial till sediments, consisting of mud, silty
gravel, cobbles and boulders. The shoreline along Railroad dock is
armored with riprap and contains little to no riparian vegetation. This
armoring extends to below the mean higher high water (MHHW) mark to an
unknown depth. At the project site, the Taiya Inlet is approximately 2
kilometers (km) wide and water depth ranges from approximately 100-200
feet (ft) (30-60 meters (m)); however water depth in Taiya Inlet
reaches over 500 ft (152 m), within and south of the project area.
Skagway Harbor is frequently visited by cruise ship vessels during
the summer and is a site of recreational and commercial activity.
Vessels must travel up Taiya Inlet to enter the Skagway Harbor.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
To facilitate dual mooring of large cruise ship vessels, the
proposed Railroad Dock dolphin installation
[[Page 64543]]
project includes installation of two 200-ton dolphins. Two crane
barges, one material barge, and three work boats (each under 25 feet)
would be used to complete the project. Barges would be moored on-site
for the duration of construction. Each dolphin would require the
installation and removal of seven 36-inch steel pipe template piles (14
total) and the installation six 42-inch steel pipe permanent piles (12
total). The temporary template piles would be installed to aid in
construction and would be removed after the permanent dolphin piles are
installed. Each temporary template pile would be approximately 200 ft
in length and would consist of up to two sections that would be spliced
(e.g. welded) together as they are installed (for a total of up to 28
segments). Each permanent pile would be approximately 300 ft in length
and would consist of up to three sections that would be spliced
together as they installed (for a total of 36 segments).
Template and permanent piles would be installed in water depths up
to 140-feet deep and into loose substrate that is intermixed with
cobbles and boulder-sized rocks. Due to the nature of deep-water pile
installation in loose sediment, each pile (consisting of two to three
segments) would be installed using a combination of installation
methods: Vibratory hammer, impact hammer, and drilling (Table 1).
Removal of template piles would only require the use of a vibratory
hammer. It may be necessary to switch between installation methods
multiple times per day depending on encountered conditions. However, no
activities would occur simultaneously (e.g., only one installation
method would occur on one pile at any time). Throughout the project,
one crane would be dedicated to drilling only and the second crane
would alternate between the vibratory and impact hammers (as noted,
only one crane would be active at any given time). In addition to
alternating between installation methods, the project would require the
piles segments to be spliced together to make the piles longer before
continuing installation. That is, the first segment of pile would be
installed using one or more methods; the second segment would then be
welded to the first segment and the process would be repeated until the
entire pile is installed.
Table 1--Pile Installation and Removal Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile installation equipment Model/size Description/purpose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crane....................... 200-250-ton barge Install piles, set
with a 200-250-ft dolphin caps, set
boom (up to 2 catwalks, move
cranes). material, etc.
Vibratory Hammer............ APE 200 or Advance pile through
equivalent. overburden to
vibratory refusal.
Impact Hammer............... Delmag D100 Diesel Advance pile through
hammer or overburden once
equivalent. vibratory refusal
has been reached.
Drill....................... Rock Anchor (8-inch A drill is inserted
hole): ICE-HS-27 through the pile
Top drive down-hole all the way down to
hammer PDQL-80 or bedrock. The drill
equivalent. breaks up rock into
Socket (42-inch small flakes
hole): PPV ring bit (tailings) which
MF34 down hole are removed from
hammer or the drilled hole as
equivalent. the pile or casing
advances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tips of all template piles would be embedded approximately 60
ft beneath the mudline using impact or vibratory hammering and
drilling. The structural design of the dolphins requires the tips of
all permanent piles to bear on and be socketed in bedrock located 100-
200 ft beneath the mudline. During installation, some or all piles will
encounter obstructions prior to reaching final tip depth and will
require drilling through obstructions to meet project specifications.
The first segment of each pile would be impact or vibratory driven to
first refusal. First refusal occurs when the pile tip cannot be
advanced any further with a vibratory or impact hammer. This will most
likely occur when the pile tip is located on an obstruction (prior to
reaching bedrock) or at bedrock. To determine whether the pile tip has
reached bedrock, the contractor would then drill past the segment tip.
If the drill advances up to 20 ft past the segment tip through rock,
bedrock is encountered. If the drill ``punches through'' the
obstruction and encounters soft overburden material, the pile would
continue to be advanced using drilling, impact, or vibratory methods.
Once second refusal is reached, bedrock would again need to be verified
by drilling up to 20-ft past the pile tip into bedrock. This process is
repeated until bedrock is confirmed (permanent piles) or the required
depth has been achieved (template piles), however it is possible that
template piles may be fully installed without encountering bedrock.
As each pile segment is installed, WP&YR would splice segments to
increase the length of the pile and continue with the pile
installation. Splicing pipe pile involves welding pipe pile end to end
with a complete joint penetration weld. On average, splicing is
anticipated to require three to five days to complete per pile. For
permanent piles, once bedrock is confirmed and all segments are welded
together, a smaller 8-inch drill would be used to drill a rock anchor
hole into bedrock 50 ft past the pile tip. The 8-inch hole for the rock
anchor is drilled beneath the pile tip from within the hollow pipe
pile. A steel bar would be grouted into this hole. Once the grout sets,
a jack would be applied to the top of the bar and the rock anchor would
be locked off to plates at the top of the pile. After the permanent
piles are installed, temporary piles would be removed.
WP&YR estimates drilling and vibratory hammering would occur for a
maximum of 10 hours per day (although the amount of time within that 10
hour window dedicated to each method cannot be determined at this time
as it is dependent upon substrate conditions) and total number of
impact pile driving strikes would not exceed 2,000 per day. WP&YR
estimates that it would take 8 hours to install and remove one template
pile and 28.1 hours (over the course of multiple days) to install one
permanent pile (additional details can be found in section 2 of WP&YR's
application).
After all dolphin piles are installed, a prefabricated steel
dolphin cap would be set on top of the piles and welded to the cap. The
project also involves modifications to an existing dolphin cap and
installation of two catwalks; however, this work does not include in-
water work and is not anticipated to take marine mammals. All barges,
cranes, equipment, personnel, temporary structures, unused materials,
etc. would be removed from the site upon project completion.
[[Page 64544]]
WP&YR anticipates all in-water construction would occur between
February 1, 2019 and April 30, 2019 (89 days) with mobilization
occurring December through January, 2019 and above water work and
demobilization occurring April through May, 2019. Multiple or all
installation methods of template and permanent piles may occur on the
same day, but would not occur at the same time. Work may occur seven
days per week.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS'
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the Taiya Inlet and larger Lynn Canal and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. Alaska SARs (e.g., Muto et al. 2018). All values presented
in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2017 SARs (Muto et al. 2018) and draft 2018 SARs
(available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 2--Marine Mammals Potentially Present Within Taiya Inlet During the Specified Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern North Pacific.. -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 138
2016).
Family Balaenidae:
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Central North Pacific.. -, -, Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 83 25
2006).
Minke Whale..................... Balaenoptera Alaska................. -, -, N N/A................... UND 0
acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale......................... Physeter macrocephalus. North Pacific.......... E, D, Y N/A (N/A, N/A, 2015).. UND 4.4
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Alaska Resident........ -, -, N 2,347 (N/A, 2,347, 24 1
2012) \4\.
Northern Resident -, -, N 261 (N/A, 261, 2011) 1.96 0
\4\.
Gulf of Alaska, -, -, N 587 (N/A, 587, 2012) 5.87 1
Aleutian Islands, \4\.
Bering Sea Transient
West Coast Transient -, -, N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 2.4 0
\4\.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin..... Lagenorhynchus North Pacific.......... -, -, N 26,880 (N/A, N/A, UND 0
obliquidens. 1990).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Southeast Alaska....... -, -, Y 975 (0.12-0.14, 897, 8.9 34
2012) \5\.
Dall's porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... Alaska................. -, -, N 83,400 (0.097, N/A, UND 38
1991).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
Steller sea lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Western U.S............ E, D, Y 54,267 (N/A, 54,267, 326 252
2017).
Eastern U.S T, D, Y................ 41,638 (N/A, 2498.................. 108
41,638, 2015)
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
[[Page 64545]]
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina Lynn Canal/Stephens -, -, N 9,478 (N/A, 8,605, 155 50
richardii. Passage. 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A).
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs.
\5\ In the SAR for harbor porpoise, NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland southeast Alaska waters (these abundance
estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative).
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 2. However, the temporal and/or spatial
occurrence of the Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus
obliquidens), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and sperm whale
(Physeter macrocephalus) are such that take is not expected to occur,
and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided
here. The range of Pacific white-sided dolphin is suggested to overlap
with Lynn Canal (Muto et al. 2018), but no sightings have been
documented in the project area (Dahlheim et al. 2009; K. Gross, Never
Monday Charters, personal communication; R. Ford, Taiya Inlet Watershed
Council, personal communication reported in MOS 2016). Gray whale
sightings in this northern portion of Southeast Alaska are very rare;
there have only been eight sightings since 1997 (J. Neilson, National
Park Service, personal communication reported in MOS 2016). None of
these observations occurred in the Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal. Tagged sperm
whales have been tracked within the Gulf of Alaska, with one whale
tracked up Lynn Canal during October 2014 (SEASWAP 2017). Tagging
studies primarily show that sperm whales use the deep water slope
habitat extensively for foraging (Mathias et al. 2012). This species
prefers deeper waters, and are unlikely to occur in Taiya Inlet.
WP&YR requested take for seven marine mammal species documented in
the waters of the Taiya Inlet/Lynn Canal (Dahlheim et al. 2009; Muto et
al. 2018). One of the species, the harbor seal, is known to regularly
occur near the project site year round; however the closest seasonal
haulout site is three miles (4.8 km) from the project area and not
within the Level B harassment ensonified area (see Estimated Take).
Moderate to high abundances of Steller sea lions are also known to
seasonally occupy the inlet, with the closest seasonal haulout located
11 miles (18 km) from the project site. Several humpback whales have
been observed within Taiya Inlet, sometimes close to Skagway, during
non-winter months. The remaining four species (harbor porpoise, Dall's
porpoise, killer whale, and minke whale) may occur in Taiya Inlet/Lynn
Canal, but less frequently and farther from Skagway Harbor and the
project site. Information on presence and distribution in the WP&YR
project area can be found in the
Habitat
No Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) or ESA-designated critical
habitat overlap with the project area, however there is seasonally
important foraging habitat for some species of marine mammal which
overlap spatially and temporally with proposed project activities. The
annual eulachon run (which occurs for approximately three to four weeks
during April through May) in Lynn Canal is important to all marine
mammals (particularly Steller sea lions, and harbor seals, and humpback
whales) for seasonal foraging and many species travel into Taiya Inlet
to forage on this prey.
Cetaceans
Humpback Whale
The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins. In
winter, most humpback whales are found in the subtropical and tropical
waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and then migrate to
high latitudes in the summer to feed. The historic summer feeding range
of humpback whales in the North Pacific encompassed coastal and inland
waters around the Pacific Rim from Point Conception, California, north
to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian
Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk and
north of the Bering Strait (Johnson and Wolman 1984).
There are currently three MMPA-designated stocks of humpback whales
in the North Pacific: (1) The California/Oregon/Washington stock,
consisting of winter/spring populations in coastal Central America and
coastal Mexico which migrate to the coast of California to southern
British Columbia in summer/fall (Calambokidis et al. 1989; Steiger et
al. 1991; Calambokidis et al. 1993); (2) the Central North Pacific
stock, consisting of winter/spring populations of the Hawaiian Islands
which migrate primarily to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska,
the Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (Perry et al.
1990; Calambokidis et al. 1997); and (3) the Western North Pacific
stock, consisting of winter/spring populations off Asia which migrate
primarily to Russia and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. The Central
North Pacific stock is the only stock that is found near the project
area.
On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final decision changing the
status of humpback whales under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (81 FR
62259), effective October 11, 2016. Previously, humpback whales were
listed under the ESA as an endangered species worldwide. In the 2016
decision, NMFS recognized the existence of 14 distinct population
segments (DPSs), classified four of those as endangered and one as
threatened, and determined that the remaining nine DPSs do not warrant
protection under the ESA. Whales occurring in the project area would
primarily include individuals from the delisted Hawaii DPS (93.9
percent probability), but could also include individuals from the
threatened Mexico DPS (6.1 percent probability) (Wade et al. 2016).
Humpback whales are found throughout southeast Alaska in a variety
of marine environments, including
[[Page 64546]]
open-ocean, near-shore waters, and areas with strong tidal currents
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). Humpback whales generally arrive in southeast
Alaska in March and return to their wintering grounds in November. Some
humpback whales depart late or arrive early to feeding grounds, and
therefore the species occurs in southeast Alaska year-round (Straley
1990). Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed humpback whales throughout all
major waterways in southeast Alaska with concentrations of whales
consistently observed in Icy Strait, Lynn Canal, Stephens Passage,
Chatham Strait, and Frederick Sound. Mean group size varied among
season with group sizes of 1.38, 1.65, and 1.95 in spring, summer, and
fall respectively.
Subsistence hunters in Alaska are not authorized to take Central
North Pacific stock humpback whales and no takes were reported from
2012-2016 (Muto et al. 2018). Threats to the Central North Pacific
stock include changes in prey distribution due to climate change,
entanglement in fishing gear, ship strike, and anthropogenic sound,
however the Central North Pacific stock is increasing (Muto et al.
2018).
Minke Whale
Minke whales are found throughout the northern hemisphere in polar,
temperate, and tropical waters. In the North Pacific, minke whales
occur from the Bering and Chukchi seas south to near the Equator
(Leatherwood et al. 1982). Minke whales are generally found in coastal
waters shallower than 200 m and are usually observed solitary or in
small groups of two to three whales (Zerbini et al. 2006; Zerbini et
al. 2006). In Alaska, there is only one stock of minke whales and
seasonal movements are associated with feeding areas that are generally
located at the edge of the pack ice (NMFS 2014).
Although no comprehensive abundance estimate is available for the
Alaska stock of minke whales, recent surveys provide estimates for
portions of the stock's range. A 2010 survey conducted on the eastern
Bering Sea shelf produced a provisional abundance estimate of 2,020 (CV
= 0.73) whales (Friday et al. 2013). This estimate is considered
provisional because it has not been corrected for animals missed on the
trackline, animals submerged when the ship passed, or responsive
movement. Additionally, line-transect surveys were conducted in shelf
and nearshore waters (within 30-45 nautical miles of land) in 2001-2003
between the Kenai Peninsula (150[deg] W) and Amchitka Pass (178[deg]
W). Minke whale abundance was estimated to be 1,233 (CV = 0.34) for
this area (also not corrected for animals missed on the trackline)
(Zerbini et al. 2006). The majority of the sightings were in the
Aleutian Islands, rather than in the Gulf of Alaska, and in water
shallower than 200 m. 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.
Surveys in southeast Alaska have consistently identified
individuals throughout inland waters in low numbers, however none were
observed in Taiya Inlet or Lynn Canal (Dahlheim et al. 2009). As few
minke whales were observed during recent offshore Gulf of Alaska
surveys for cetaceans in 2009, 2013, and 2015, a population estimate
for minke whales in this area cannot be determined (Rone et al. 2017).
There are no data available to determine trends in minke whale
abundance in Alaska waters. Subsistence takes of minke whales in Alaska
is rare, with the last known catch occurring in 1989. Although no
incidents of human-related serious injury and mortality were recorded
for Alaska stock minke whales between 2012 and 2016, threats to the
population include entanglement in fishing gear, ship strikes, and
anthropogenic sound, as well as changes in prey distribution due to
climate change (Muto et al. 2018).
Killer Whale
Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the
world, but the highest densities occur in colder and more productive
waters found at high latitudes. Killer whales are found throughout the
North Pacific, and occur along the entire Alaska coast, in British
Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts of
Washington, Oregon, and California (Muto et al. 2018). Based on data
regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements, and genetic
differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized in the
Pacific Ocean: (1) The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern Resident
stock; (3) the Southern Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska,
Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient
stock; (6) the West Coast Transient stock; and (7) the Offshore stock,
and (8) the Hawaii stock. Only the Alaska Resident, Northern Resident,
Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient, and West
Coast Transient stocks are considered in this analysis because other
stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration. Any of
these four stocks could be seen in the action area; however, the Alaska
and Northern Resident stocks are most likely to overlap with the
project area (Muto et al. 2018).
The Alaska Resident stock is found from southeastern Alaska to the
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. Intermixing of Alaska Residents have
been documented among the three areas, at least as far west as the
eastern Aleutian Islands. The Northern Resident stock occurs from
Washington State through part of southeastern Alaska. The Northern
Resident stock is a transboundary stock, and includes killer whales
that frequent British Columbia, Canada and southeastern Alaska
(Dahlheim et al. 1997; Ford et al. 2000). The Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock occurs mainly from Prince
William Sound through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The West
Coast Transient stock includes animals that occur in California,
Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and southeastern Alaska.
Transient killer whales occur in smaller, less matrilineal
groupings than resident killer whales. They are also more likely to
rely on stealth tactics when foraging, making fewer and less
conspicuous calls, and edging along shorelines and around headlands in
order to hunt their prey, including, Steller sea lions, harbor seals,
and smaller cetaceans, in highly coordinated attacks (Barrett-Lennard
et al. 2011). Residents often travel in much larger and closer knit
groups within which they share any fish they catch.
Resident and transient killer whales have been documented in the
middle to lower reaches of Lynn Canal, but not within the upper reaches
or in Taiya Inlet (Dahlheim et al. 2009). Dahlheim et al. (2009)
frequently observed two resident pods identified as AF and AG pods
(Alaska Resident stock) throughout Icy Strait, Lynn Canal, Stephens
Passage, Frederick Sound and upper Chatham Strait. The seasonality of
resident killer whales could not be investigated statistically due to
low encounter rates and mean group size of resident whales did not vary
significantly among seasons and ranged from 19 to 33 individuals
(Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed transient killer whales in all
major waterways, including Lynn Canal, in open-strait environments,
near-shore waters, protected bays and inlets, and in ice-laden waters
near tidewater glaciers. The transient killer whale mean group size
also did not vary with season and ranged from four to six individuals
in Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009). Transient killer whale
numbers were highest in summer, with lower numbers observed in spring
and fall.
[[Page 64547]]
No reliable data on trends in population abundance for the entire
Alaska Resident, Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient, and West Coast Transient stocks of killer whales are
unavailable (Muto et al. 2018). The Northern Resident stock is
increasing with an average 2.1 percent increase over a 36 year time
period (Ellis et al. 2011). There are no reports of subsistence harvest
of killer whales in Alaska, however other threats to the stocks include
interactions with fisheries, vessel collisions, and decreases in prey
abundance (Muto et al. 2018).
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic
waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point
Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. While harbor porpoise
primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most frequently in waters
less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010), they may occasionally be
found in deeper offshore waters. Within the inland waters of Southeast
Alaska, harbor porpoise distribution is clumped, with greatest
densities observed in the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait region, and near
Zarembo and Wrangell Islands and the adjacent waters of Sumner Strait
(Allen and Angliss 2014). Group sizes were on average between 1.37-1.59
animals (less than 2) (Dahlheim et al. 2009; 2015).
In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three
stocks, based primarily on geography. These are (1) the Southeast
Alaska stock--occurring from the northern border of British Columbia to
Cape Suckling, Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock--occurring from
Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea stock--occurring
throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass
(Allen and Angliss 2014). Only the Southeast Alaska stock is considered
in this analysis because it is the only stock found in the project
area.
No reports of subsistence harvest of harbor porpoises from the
Southeast Alaska stock have been reported since the early 1900s
(Shelden et al. 2014).The total estimated annual level of human-caused
mortality and serious injury for Southeast Alaska stock (n = 34)
exceeds the calculated PBR of 8.9 porpoises. However because the
calculated PBR is based on surveys from 2010-2012 in only a portion of
the stock's range (the inside water of southeast Alaska), PBR is likely
biased low for the entire stock (Muto et al. 2018). Population trends
and status of this stock relative to its Optimum Sustainable Population
are currently unknown.
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoise are widely distributed across the entire North
Pacific Ocean. They are found over the continental shelf adjacent to
the slope and over deep (greater than 2,500 m) oceanic waters and have
been sighted throughout the North Pacific as far north as 65[deg] N
(Hall 1979; Buckland et al. 1993). The only apparent distribution gaps
in Alaska waters are upper Cook Inlet and the shallow eastern flats of
the Bering Sea. They are present during all months of the year in much
of the eastern North Pacific, although they may make seasonal onshore-
offshore movements along the west coast of the continental United
States and winter movements out of areas with ice (Hall 1979;
Leatherwood and Fielding 1974; Loeb 1972).
Currently one stock of Dall's porpoise is recognized in Alaskan
waters (Muto et al. 2018). Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed Dall's
porpoise throughout Southeast Alaska, but only observed Dall's porpoise
in Lynn Canal as far north as Haines, Alaska, about 15 miles south of
Skagway. Infrequent observations (three to six) of Dall's porpoise have
been observed in Taiya Inlet during the early spring and late fall,
however they have not been observed near the project site near the
Skagway waterfront (K. Gross, Never Monday Charters, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016). At present, there is no reliable
information on trends in abundance for the Alaska stock of Dall's
porpoise (Muto et al. 2018). There are no subsistence uses of this
species (Muto et al. 2018), however Dall's porpoise are vulnerable to
fisheries-related entanglement and injury and to physical modifications
of nearshore habitats resulting from urban and industrial development
(including waste management and nonpoint source runoff), and noise
(Linnenschmidt et al. 2013).
Pinnipeds
Steller Sea Lion
The Steller sea lion is the largest of the eared seals (otariids),
ranging along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California,
with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and
Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to
rest and take refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally
used rookeries to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel,
rocky, or sand beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs (Muto et al. 2018).
Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur west of 144[deg] W
(Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western Distinct Population
Segment (wDPS) or Western U.S. stock, while all others comprise the
eastern DPS (eDPS) or Eastern U.S. stock; however, there is regular
movement of both DPSs across this boundary (Muto et al. 2018). Both of
these populations may occur in the action area, however in Lynn Canal/
Taiya Inlet Steller sea lions are most likely part of the eDPS/Eastern
U.S. stock. Based on the percent of branded animals at Gran Point it is
estimated that 2 percent of the sea lions in the project area are
potentially from the wDPS/Eastern U.S. stock (personal communication,
L. Jemison Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2017). Steller sea lions
were listed as threatened range-wide under the ESA on 26 November 1990
(55 FR 49204). Steller sea lions were subsequently partitioned into the
western and eastern DPSs in 1997, with the wDPS being listed as
endangered under the ESA and the eDPS remaining classified as
threatened (62 FR 24345) until it was delisted in November 2013. In
August 1993, NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat
for the Steller sea lion as a 20-nautical mile buffer around all major
haul-outs and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air and
aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas (50 CFR
226.202). There is no Steller sea lion critical habitat located in the
action area.
Gran Point, which is located 24 mi (38 km) south of the project
area, is the closest year-round Steller sea lion haulout. However,
during the spring eulachon run, a seasonal haulout site is located on
Taiya Point at the southern tip of Taiya Inlet, approximately 11 mi (18
km) from the project site. Twenty-five to 40 sea lions are estimated to
use this haulout for about three weeks during spring run, during which
they frequently are observed in the inlet. The eulachon run (which
occurs for approximately three to four weeks during mid-March through
May) in Lynn Canal is important to Steller sea lions for seasonal
foraging. These spawning aggregations of forage fish provide densely
aggregated, high-energy prey for Steller sea lions (and harbor seals)
for brief time periods and influence haulout use (Sigler et al. 2004;
Womble et al. 2005; Womble and Sigler 2006). The pre-spawning
aggregations and spawning season for many forage fish species occur
between March and
[[Page 64548]]
May in Southeast Alaska just prior to the breeding season of sea lions
(Pitcher et al. 2001; Womble and Sigler 2006). After May, Steller sea
lion presence in the project action area declines. During surveys
conducted in 2002 and 2003, Womble et al. (2005) observed a maximum of
approximately 400 Steller sea lions in the water at the mouth of the
Taiya River feeding on eulachon in 2003, but observed very few in the
same area in 2002. Steller sea lions have also been observed in Lutak
Inlet, a foraging site closer to both Taiya Point and Gran Point
haulouts.
Steller sea lions are included in Alaska subsistence harvests. The
mean annual subsistence take of Western U.S. Steller sea lions was 203
from 2004-2016, and the mean annual take of Eastern U.S. Steller sea
lions was 11 from 2005-2008 and 2012 (Muto et al. 2018). Entanglements
in fishing gear and marine debris, and interactions with fishing gear
are sources of mortality and serious injury for Steller sea lions. The
Eastern U.S. stock is increasing with models indicating the rate of
increase as 4.76 percent per year based on pup counts and 2.84 percent
per year based on non-pup counts (Muto et al. 2018). Pup and non-pup
counts of Western U.S. stock Steller sea lions in Alaska have increased
1.78 percent per year and 2.14 per year respectively between 2002 and
2017.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts
of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast
Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the
Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the
Pribilof Islands (Muto et al. 2018). They haul out on rocks, reefs,
beaches, and drifting glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and
occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals generally are nonmigratory,
with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather,
season, food availability, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944;
Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981; Hastings et al. 2004).
Harbor seals in Alaska are partitioned into 12 separate stocks
based largely on genetic structure: (1) The Aleutian Islands stock, (2)
the Pribilof Islands stock, (3) the Bristol Bay stock, (4) the North
Kodiak stock, (5) the South Kodiak stock, (6) the Prince William Sound
stock, (7) the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock, (8) the Glacier Bay/Icy
Strait stock, (9) the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock, (10) the
Sitka/Chatham stock, (11) the Dixon/Cape Decision stock, and (12) the
Clarence Strait stock. Only the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock is
considered in this analysis. The stock range includes north along the
east and north coast of Admiralty Island from the north end of
Kupreanof Island through Lynn Canal, including Taku Inlet, Tracy Arm,
and Endicott Arm (Muto et al. 2018). The most current (2007-2011)
estimate of the population trend for the stock is -176 seals per year,
with a probability that the stock is decreasing of 0.71 (Muto et al.
2018).
Harbor seals are included in subsistence harvests. Annual harvests
from the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage in 2011 and 2012 were 50 animals
each year, which is higher than previous estimates of 30 animals, on
average, per year from 2004-2008 (Muto et al. 2018). Entanglement in
fishing gear is also a large contributor to their annual human-caused
serious injury/mortality.
Additional information on the biology and local distribution of
these species can be found in the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment
Reports, which may be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al.
1995; Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To reflect this,
Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into
functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall
et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges
correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range
not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within
that group):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al. 2006; Kastelein et al. 2009; Reichmuth and Holt
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Seven marine mammal species (five cetacean and two pinniped (one
otariid and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-
occur with the proposed activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present, two are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), one is classified as
a mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and
the sperm whale), and two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section
later in this document includes a quantitative
[[Page 64549]]
analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by
this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section
considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far (ANSI 1994). The sound level of an area is
defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al. 1995). The result is that, depending
on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity
may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, and
drilling. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two
general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds
(e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are
typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist
of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI
1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005; NMFS 2018). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g.
aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or
tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically
do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that
impulsive sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). The distinction
between these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et al. 2007).
Two types of pile hammers would be used on this project: Impact and
vibratory. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston
onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by
impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak
levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005).
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the
weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers
produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be
180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs
generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et
al. 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity
of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of
time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al. 2005).
Drilling would be conducted using a down-the-hole drill inserted
through the hollow steel piles. A down-the-hole drill is a drill bit
that drills through the bedrock using a pulse mechanism that functions
at the bottom of the hole. This pulsing bit breaks up rock to allow
removal of debris and insertion of the pile. The head extends so that
the drilling takes place below the pile. The pulsing sounds produced by
the down-the-hole drilling method are continuous, however this method
likely increases sound attenuation because the noise is primarily
contained within the steel pile and below ground rather than impact
hammer driving methods which occur at the top of the pile (R&M 2016).
The likely or possible impacts of WP&YR's proposed activity on
marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical
presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine
mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic
stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile
installation and removal and drilling.
Acoustic Impacts
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving and removal and down-the-hole drilling is
the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from WP&YR's
specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or
anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects,
ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al. 2007). In
general, exposure to pile driving and drilling noise has the potential
to result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g.,
avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in
dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-
observable physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones.
Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues
used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as
communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile
driving and drilling noise on marine mammals are dependent on several
factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs.
non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs.
mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and
the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous
history with exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall et al. 2007). Here
we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed by
behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the
TS, time to
[[Page 64550]]
recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of
the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing and vocalization
frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's
frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency
band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014b), and the overlap
between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and
spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold
shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 1958, 1959; Ward 1960;
Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al.
2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the
exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor
seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in
marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical
reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels
inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see
Southall et al. 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et
al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2016),
marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating
fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of
TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At
exposures with higher higher SELcum, the growth curves
become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al. 2007), so we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis)) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed in trained
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset
(Reichmuth et al. 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come
from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are
available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries
of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins
(2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles
requires a combination of impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving,
and down-the-hole drilling. For the project, these activities would not
occur at the same time and there would likely be pauses in activities
producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many
marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not
remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and
removal and drilling also has the potential to behaviorally disturb
marine mammals. Available studies show wide variation in response to
underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically
how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to
an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small
distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to
the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding
area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC
2005).
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw
clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al.
2007; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary
not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other
factors (Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary depending on
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans,
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial
sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al.
(2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
[[Page 64551]]
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.
2001; Nowacek et al. 2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et al. 2007). A
determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
In 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (ADOT&PF) documented observations of marine mammals during
construction activities (i.e., pile driving and down-hole drilling) at
the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636 for Final IHA Federal Register
notice). In the marine mammal monitoring report for that project (ABR
2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were observed within the Level B
disturbance zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., documented as
Level B harassment take). Of these, 19 individuals demonstrated an
alert behavior, 7 were fleeing, and 19 swam away from the project site.
All other animals (98 percent) were engaged in activities such as
milling, foraging, or fighting and did not change their behavior. In
addition, two sea lions approached within 20 meters of active vibratory
pile driving activities. Three harbor seals were observed within the
disturbance zone during pile driving activities; none of them displayed
disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer whales and three harbor porpoise
were also observed within the Level B harassment zone during pile
driving. The killer whales were travelling or milling while all harbor
porpoises were travelling. No signs of disturbance were noted for
either of these species. Given the similarities in activities and
habitat and the fact the same species are involved, we expect similar
behavioral responses of marine mammals to the specified activity. That
is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be temporary and localized (e.g.,
small area movements). Monitoring reports from other recent pile
driving and down-the-hole drilling projects in Alaska have observed
similar behaviors (for example, the Biorka Island Dock Replacement
Project).
Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g. on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked.
Skagway Harbor contains an active port of call for cruise ships and
hosts numerous recreational and commercial vessels; therefore,
background sound levels in the harbor are already elevated.
Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving
and removal and down-the-hole drilling that have the potential to cause
behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving
activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds
that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.
Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may
result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above
water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to
exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in
vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move
further from the source. However, these animals would previously have
been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the
behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than
those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment
of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of
potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of
incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is
warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
WP&YR construction activities at the Railroad Dock could have
localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by
increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water
quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see
masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in
the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During impact
pile driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify Taiya
Inlet where both fish and mammals occur and could affect foraging
success.
Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have
temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in
underwater and airborne sound. These sounds would not be detectable at
the nearest known Steller sea lion haulouts, and all known harbor seal
haulouts are well beyond the maximum distance of predicted in-air
acoustical disturbance.
In-water pile driving, pile removal, and drilling activities would
also cause short-term effects on water quality due to increased
turbidity. Local strong currents are anticipated to disburse suspended
sediments produced by project activities at moderate to rapid rates
depending on tidal stage. WP&YR would employ standard construction best
management practices (BMPs; see section 11 and Appendix B in
application), thereby reducing any impacts. Therefore, the impact from
increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable.
In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat
The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small
compared to the available habitat in Lynn Canal/Taiya Inlet (e.g., most
of the impacted area is limited to the northern and western portions of
Taiya Inlet) and does not include any BIAs or ESA-designated critical
habitat. Pile installation/removal and drilling may
[[Page 64552]]
temporarily increase turbidity resulting from suspended sediments. Any
increases would be temporary, localized, and minimal. WP&YR must comply
with state water quality standards during these operations by limiting
the extent of turbidity to the immediate project area. In general,
turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-
foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 1980). Cetaceans are not
expected to be close enough to the project pile driving areas to
experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds would be transiting
the area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the
impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable
to marine mammals. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project
site would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.
Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate area due
to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible. The
duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and
behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the
disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and
marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in Lynn Canal/
Taiya Inlet.
The duration of the construction activities is relatively short.
The construction window is for a maximum of 89 days and during each
day, construction activities would only occur during daylight hours.
Impacts to habitat and prey are expected to be minimal based on the
short duration of activities.
In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Prey (Fish)--
Construction activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile
driving and down-the-hole drilling) and pulsed (i.e. impact driving)
sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or
intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can
cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution.
Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish
may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies
have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are
based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction
projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings 2009).
Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in
fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior
(Pearson et al. 1992; Skalski et al. 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength
have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality.
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving and drilling
activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance
of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile
driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine
mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the
short timeframe for the project.
Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have
the potential to adversely affect forage fish and juvenile salmonid
outmigratory routes in the project area. Both herring and salmon form a
significant prey base for Steller sea lions, herring is a primary prey
species of humpback whales, and both herring and salmon are components
of the diet of many other marine mammal species that occur in the
project area. Increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate
vicinity (on the order of 10 feet or less) of construction activities.
However, suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate
quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected
and high tidal dilution rates any effects on forage fish and salmon are
expected to be minor or negligible. In addition, best management
practices would be in effect, which would limit the extent of turbidity
to the immediate project area. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from
construction activities is not expected to be different from the
current exposure; fish and marine mammals in the Lynn Canal/Taiya Inlet
region are routinely exposed to substantial levels of suspended
sediment from glacial sources.
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving and drilling events and the relatively small
areas being affected, pile driving and drilling activities associated
with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse
effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, we
conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have
more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations
of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for
individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their
populations.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the impact and vibratory hammers and down-the-hole drilling has the
potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual
marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level
A harassment) to result, primarily for low-frequency cetaceans, high-
frequency cetaceans, and/or phocids because predicted auditory injury
zones are larger than for mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids.
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans and
otariids. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected
to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. As
described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in
[[Page 64553]]
more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al.; 2007,
Ellison et al. 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both
predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to
be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment
when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of
120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving,
drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive
impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. WP&YR's proposed activity includes the use of
continuous (vibratory pile driving/removal and drilling) and impulsive
(impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (rms) thresholds are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS 2018) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
WP&YR's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile
driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving/removal and
drilling) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 3. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described
in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... L,0-pk,flat: 219 dB; LE,, LE,, LF,24h: 199 dB.
LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... L,0-pk,flat: 230 dB; LE,, LE,, MF,24h: 198 dB.
MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... L,0-pk,flat: 202 dB; LE,, HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... L,0-pk.flat: 218 dB; LE,,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... L,0-pk,flat: 232 dB; LE,,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS
onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds
associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (L,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
exposure level (LE,) has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to be
more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ``flat''
is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound
exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure
levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the
conditions under which these thresholds will be exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving and removal and down-the-hole drilling). The maximum
(underwater) ensonification area of 17.9 km \2\ due to project
activities is governed by the topography of Taiya Inlet (see Figure 6
in the application). The eastern shoreline of the inlet is acoustically
shadowed due to land located just south of the proposed project site.
Similarly, Yakutania Point and Dyea Point would inhibit transmission of
project sounds from reaching Nahku Bay and the upper inlet at the mouth
of the Taiya River. Additionally, vessel traffic and other commercial
and industrial activities in the project area may contribute to
elevated background noise levels which may mask sounds produced by the
project.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A and Level B
harassment thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in this
project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations. Note
that piles of differing sizes have different sound source levels.
Empirical data from recent sound source verification (SSV) studies
in Anchorage and Kodiak, Alaska were used to estimate sound source
levels (SSLs) for impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving/removal,
and down-the-hole drilling installations of the 42-inch steel pipe
permanent piles and the 36-inch steel pipe template piles (Austin et
al. 2016; Denes et al. 2016). These Alaskan construction sites were
generally assumed to best represent the environmental conditions found
in Skagway and represent the nearest available source level data for
42-inch steel piles.
Tables 4 provides the sound source values used in calculating
harassment isopleths for each source type. No data are currently
available for 42-inch steel
[[Page 64554]]
pipe piles. For impact and vibratory hammer source levels WP&YR used
the median levels measured by Austin et al. (2016) during installation
of 48-inch piles at Port of Anchorage (197.9 and 166.8 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms at 11 m)). These 48-inch pile impact and vibratory levels are
conservatively used for both the 42-inch permanent piles and the 36-
inch template piles. Little SSL data are available for down-the-hole
drilling. WP&YR used the 90th percentile source levels measured by
Denes et al. (2016) during drilling down the center of 30-inch piles in
Kodiak (171 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms at 10 m)).
Table 4--Source Levels and Anticipated Daily Durations for Underwater Sound Calculations
[Hours or strikes per day represents the maximum duration of any single activity]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Source type SPLPK (dB) SPLRMS (dB) SELS S (dB) Hours or strikes per day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Template Piles
Vibratory Installation/Removal.... Non-impulsive, continuous..... n/a 166.8 n/a 3 hours.
Impact Installation............... Impulsive, intermittent....... 212.5 197.9 186.7 2,000 strikes.
Drilling Installation............. Non-impulsive, continuous..... n/a 171.0 n/a 6 hours.
Permanent Piles
Vibratory Installation............ Non-impulsive, continuous..... n/a 166.8 n/a 8 hours.
Impact Installation............... Impulsive, intermittent....... 212.5 197.9 186.7 2,000 strikes.
Drilling Installation............. Non-impulsive, continuous..... n/a 171.0 n/a 8 hours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
Where:
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven
pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial
measurement
A practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions,
such as at the WP&YR Railroad Dock, where water increases with depth as
the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is
assumed here.
When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in
recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more
technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in
the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools
to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that
because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for
these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going
to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile
driving and drilling, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest
distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance (or
greater) the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS.
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and the resulting isopleths are
reported in Tables 5 and 6. As WP&YR plans to employ two continuous
sound sources (vibratory pile driving and drilling) it is necessary to
account for accumulation of sound caused by both activities during the
full 10 hour work day when calculating Level A harassment isopleths. As
drilling has the higher sound pressure level we propose to use drilling
to calculate the Level A harassment isopleths for both drilling and
vibratory pile driving activities (Table 5). For impact pile driving,
isopleths calculated using the SELCUM metric will be used as
it produces larger isopleths than SPLPK. Isopleths for Level
B harassment associated with impact pile driving (160 dB) and vibratory
pile driving/removal and drilling (120 dB) were also calculated and are
can be found in Table 6.
Table 5--User Spreadsheet Input Parameters Used for Calculating
Harassment Isopleths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile
Parameter Impact pile driving driving and drilling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used........ E.1) Impact pile A.1) Drilling/
driving. Vibratory pile
driving.
Source Level................ 186.7 dB SEL........ 171 dB rms.
Weighting Factor Adjustment 2................... 2.
(kHz).
Number of strikes per day... 2,000............... N/A.
Activity Duration (h) within N/A................. 10 hours.
24-hour period.
Propagation (xLogR)......... 15LogR.............. 15LogR.
Distance of source level 11.................. 10.
measurement (meters).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64555]]
Table 6--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Isopleths During Pile Installation and Removal and Drilling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (meters) Level B
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- harassment zone
(meters)
Source Low- frequency Mid- frequency High- Phocid Otariid -----------------
cetacean cetacean frequency pinniped pinniped Cetaceans and
cetacean pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling and Vibratory Installation................... 148 8.3 129.7 79.2 5.8 \1\ 13,000
Impact Installation................................... 3,077.2 109.4 3,665.4 1,646.8 119.9 3,698.8
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Source................................................ PTS Onset Isopleth--Peak (meters)
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Impact Installation................................... 4.1 n/a 55.1 4.7 n/a ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on maximum distance before landfall. Calculated distance was 25.1 km.
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations, and how this information is brought together to produce a
quantitative take estimate.
Density information is not available for marine mammals in the
project area in Taiya Inlet. Potential exposures to impact and
vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold for all other marine
mammals were estimated using published reports of group sizes and
population estimates, and anecdotal observational reports from local
commercial entities. For several species, it is not currently possible
to identify all observed individuals to stock.
Level B Harassment Calculations
The estimation of takes by Level B harassment uses the following
calculation:
Level B harassment estimate = N (number of animals in the
ensonified area) * Number of days of noise generating activities.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are the most commonly observed baleen whale in
Southeast Alaska, particularly during spring and summer months.
Humpback whales in Alaska, although not limited to these areas, return
to specific feeding locations such as Frederick Sound, Chatham Strait,
North Pass, Sitka Sound, Glacier Bay, Point Adolphus, and Prince
William Sound, as well as other similar coastal areas (Wing and Krieger
1983). In Lynn Canal they have been observed in the spring and fall
from Haines to Juneau, however scientific surveys have not documented
the species within Taiya Inlet (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Local observations indicate that humpback whales are not common in
the project action area but, if they are sighted, are generally present
during mid to late spring and vacate the area by July to follow large
aggregations of forage fish in lower Lynn Canal. Local observers have
reported humpback whales in Taiya Inlet, sometimes fairly close to the
Skagway waterfront. Due to seasonal migration patterns, the low
frequency of humpbacks in the area, and that no humpback whales have
been reported during winter months it is anticipated that no humpback
whales will be present in the project area in February. On average,
four to five individuals may occur near Skagway during the spring
eulachon run in April and May, after which, only a few individuals are
observed throughout the summer. In 2015, only one whale was observed
(for several) weeks close to Skagway (K. Gross, personal communication
reported in MOS 2016). Based on humpback whale occurrence in the
project area and local observations, it is estimated that four
individuals may be present in the action area each day during April,
coinciding with 30 days of project activity (120 exposures). As it is
unclear whether humpback whales occur in the inlet in March (for
example, should the eulachon run begin early), it is conservatively
estimated that one whale might be found in the inlet during that month
for five days (0.16 whales per day, 5 exposures), for an overall total
of 125 exposures (Table 7).
Table 7--Estimated Takes of Humpback Whales per Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals in
Month inlet per day Days in month Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February........................................................ 0 28 0
March........................................................... 0.16 31 5
April........................................................... 4 30 120
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minke Whale
Minke whales are rarely observed in the project area, and
scientific surveys have not documented the species within Taiya Inlet
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). A single minke whale was observed in the inlet
in 2015 (K. Gross, Never Monday Charters, personal communication; R.
Ford, Taiya Inlet Watershed Council, both personal communications
reported in MOS 2016), and is the only known record of a minke whale in
Taiya Inlet. However one minke whale was reported by local observers in
the action area in 2015. Based on the available information it is very
unlikely minke whales will be present in the inlet, however, minke
whale presence is possible based on a single sighting and presence of
potential prey (eulachon) in the spring. Thus, we estimate a total of
[[Page 64556]]
two potential exposures of minke whales.
Killer Whale
Although killer whale stocks' ranges include southeast Alaska, they
have only been documented as far north as Lynn Canal; therefore, while
possible, occurrence north of Lynn Canal into Taiya Inlet is rare.
According to local observations, pods of resident killer whales are
occasionally seen in Taiya Inlet. Local observations indicate killer
whales are observed four or five times a year (between spring and fall)
usually in a group of 15 to 20 whales. In 2015 a resident pod was only
observed in Taiya Inlet twice, remaining for one to four days per visit
(K. Gross, personal communication reported in MOS 2016). There is no
evidence of transient whales occurring within Taiya Inlet. While the
resident pods remain in Alaska year-round there are no reports of
sightings during winter months (January-February) in Taiya Inlet so it
is assumed no killer whales will be present in the project area in
February. Based on local observations in the project area in the
spring, it is assumed that a group of 20 whales may enter the project
area once in each of March and April and remain within the inlet for
two days each time, for a total of 80 potential exposures.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are primarily found in coastal waters, and in the
Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska, they occur most frequently in
waters less than 100 meters (Dahlheim et al. 2009). Dedicated research
studies of harbor porpoise in the project area only occur as far north
in Lynn Canal as Haines during the summer (Dahlheim et al. 2009; 2015),
approximately 16 miles south of Skagway. Group sizes were, on average,
between 1.37-1.59 animals (less than 2) (Dahlheim et al. 2009; 2015).
In Lynn Canal, observations were less frequent, primarily in lower Lynn
Canal from Chatham Strait to Juneau, though harbor porpoises have been
observed as far north as Haines during the summer (Dahlheim et al.
2009; 2015).
Despite lack of observations during dedicated surveys, local
charter captains indicate that harbor porpoises commonly occur in small
groups of two or three in Taiya Inlet, although they are not
encountered on a daily basis and are rarely seen in areas close to the
waterfront (K. Gross, personal communication reported in MOS 2016).
Therefore, it is conservatively estimated that one group of three
individuals may be present in the inlet 75 percent of the days during
each month (or 2.25 porpoises per day on average) for a total of 201
potential exposures (Table 8).
Table 8--Estimated Takes of Harbor Porpoises per Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals in
Month inlet per day Days in month Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February........................................................ 2.25 28 63
March........................................................... 2.25 31 70
April........................................................... 2.25 30 68
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises are widely distributed across the entire North
Pacific Ocean. Throughout most of the eastern North Pacific they are
present during all months of the year, although there may be seasonal
onshore-offshore movements along the west coast of the continental
United States and winter movements of populations out of Prince William
Sound and areas in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea (Muto et al.
2018). Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed Dall's porpoise throughout
Southeast Alaska, with concentrations of animals consistently found in
Lynn Canal, Stephens Passage, Icy Strait, upper Chatham Strait,
Frederick Sound, and Clarence Strait. Dahlheim et al. (2009),
documented Dall's porpoise in Lynn Canal as far north as Haines,
Alaska, about 15 miles south of Skagway.
Local observation indicate that three to six Dall's porpoises may
be present in Taiya Inlet during the early spring and late fall.
Observations have been occasional to sporadic and do not occur on a
daily basis. The species has not been observed during winter months and
has not been observed near the waterfront (K. Gross, personal
communication reported in MOS 2016). The mean group size of Dall's
porpoise in Southeast Alaska is estimated to be 3.7 individuals
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). Therefore, it is estimated that a group of four
Dall's porpoises will be present in the project area every other day in
March and April (2 per day), for a total of 122 potential exposures
(Table 9).
Table 9--Estimated Takes of Dall's Porpoises per Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals in
Month inlet per day Days in month Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February........................................................ 0 28 0
March........................................................... 2 31 62
April........................................................... 2 30 60
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller Sea Lion
Several long-term Steller sea lion haulouts are located in Lynn
Canal, however none occur in Taiya Inlet. The nearest long-term Steller
sea lion haulout is located at Gran Point, south of Haines and 24 mi
(38 km) south of the project area. Other year-round haulouts in Lynn
Canal are present at Met Point, Benjamin Island, and Little Island,
closer to Juneau (Fritz et al. 2015). Observations from local charter
boat captains and watershed stewards indicate Steller sea lions can be
abundant in the action area, particularly in April and May during the
eulachon run, but are rarely observed in the project area during the
winter (K. Gross,
[[Page 64557]]
Never Monday Charters, personal communication; R. Ford, Taiya Inlet
Watershed Council, personal communication reported in MOS 2016). This
is consistent with the National Marine Mammal Laboratory database
(Fritz et al. 2015), which has identified the largest number of Lynn
Canal sea lions during the fall and winter months at Benjamin Island in
the lower reaches of the canal. During surveys conducted in 2002 and
2003, Womble et al. (2005) observed a maximum of approximately 400
Steller sea lions in the water at the mouth of the Taiya River feeding
on eulachon in 2003, but observed very few in the same area in 2002.
Steller sea lions have also been observed in Lutak Inlet, a foraging
site closer to both Taiya Point and Gran Point haulouts.
During the spring eulachon run, a seasonal haulout site is located
on Taiya Point at the southern tip of Taiya Inlet, approximately 11 mi
(18 km) from the project site. Twenty-five to 40 sea lions are
estimated to use this haulout for about three weeks during spring run,
during which they frequently are observed in the inlet (K. Gross,
personal communication reported in MOS 2016). However, most animals
leave the inlet shortly after the eulachon run and are rarely observed
in the summer. Based on survey data and local observations in the
project area, it is estimated that two animals may be present each day
in February, 16 animals may be present on each day in March (half of
the mean found on Taiya Rocks during the eulachon run), and 40 animals
may be present each day in April for a total of 1,032 potential
exposures (Table 10).
Table 10--Estimated Takes of Steller Sea Lions per Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals in
Month inlet per day Days in month Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February........................................................ 2 28 56
March........................................................... 16 31 496
April........................................................... 40 30 1,200
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 1,752
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal
No long-term haulout sites have been documented for harbor seals in
Taiya Inlet; however, seasonal haulouts are present within six miles of
the project area at Seal Cove and at the mouth of the Taiya River.
Based on reports from local observers, a few resident harbor seals are
expected to occur within Taiya Inlet during the winter months, but
during the April and May eulachon run numbers can range from 20 to over
100 (K. Gross and R. Ford, personal communication reported in MOS
2016). Before and after the spawning run, much lower numbers of harbor
seals are present.
Based on survey data and local observations in the project area it
is assumed that 20 seals (the lower estimate in the range) occur within
the project area each day in February through March (560 takes in
February and 620 takes in March) and 100 seals (the higher estimate in
the range) during April (3,000 takes) for a total of 4,180 potential
exposures (Table 11).
Table 11--Estimated Takes of Harbor Seals per Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals in
Month inlet per day Days in month Takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February........................................................ 20 28 560
March........................................................... 20 31 620
April........................................................... 100 30 3,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 4,180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment Calculations
WP&YR intends to avoid Level A harassment take by shutting down
installation activities at approach of any marine mammal to the
representative Level A harassment (PTS onset) ensonification zone up to
a practical shutdown monitoring distance. As small/cryptic marine
mammal species may enter the Level A harassment zone before shutdown
mitigation procedures can be implemented, and some animals may occur
between the maximum Level A harassment ensonification zone and the
maximum shutdown safety zone, we conservatively estimate that 20
percent of the Level B harassment takes calculated above for humpback
whales, harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoises, and harbor seals, have the
potential to be takes by Level A harassment (Table 12). Minke whale
occurrence in Taiya Inlet is rare. Because vessel-based PSO are able to
monitoring the entire Level A harassment zone (whales entering the
inlet), WP&YR did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, to authorize
Level A harassment take of minke whales.
Table 12--Estimated Take by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock, Resulting From Proposed WP&YR Project Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed take
Common name Stock Stock Level A Level B Total as percentage
abundance \1\ proposed take of stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale............................ Central North Pacific....... \2\10,103 25 100 125 1.23
Minke Whale............................... Alaska...................... N/A 0 2 2 N/A
[[Page 64558]]
Killer whale.............................. Alaska Resident............. 2,347 0 80 80 3.4
Northern Resident........... 261 30.6
Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 587 13.6
Islands, Bering Sea
Transient.
West Coast Transient........ 243 32.9
Harbor porpoise........................... Southeast Alaska............ 975 40 161 201 20.6
Dall's porpoise........................... Alaska...................... 83,400 24 98 122 0.01
Steller sea lion.......................... Western U.S................. 54,267 0 \3\35 35 0.06
Eastern U.S................. 41,638 0 1,717 1,717 4.1
Harbor seal............................... Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage. 9,478 836 3,344 4,180 44.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stock or DPS size is Nbest according to NMFS 2018 Draft Stock Assessment Reports.
\2\ For ESA section 7 consultation purposes, 6.1 percent are designated to the Mexico DPS and the remaining are designated to the Hawaii DPS; therefore,
we assigned 2 Level B takes to the Mexico DPS.
\3\ Based on the percent of branded animals at Gran Point and in consultation with the Alaska Regional Office, we used a 2 percent distinction factor to
determine the number of animals potentially from the western DPS.
There are a number of reasons why the estimates of potential
incidents of take are likely to be conservative. Given the lack of
density information, we use conservative estimates of marine mammal
presence to calculate takes for each species. Additionally, in the
context of stationary activities such as pile driving, and in areas
where resident animals may be present, this number represents the
number of instances of take that may occur to a small number of
individuals, with a notably smaller number of animals being exposed
more than once per individual. While pile driving or drilling can occur
any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is
conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time is actually
spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures
in reducing the number of takes is also not quantified in the take
estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be
conservative, especially if each take is considered a separate
individual animal, and especially for pinnipeds.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
In addition to the measures described later in this section, WP&YR
will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and
crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all
pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, to explain
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures;
For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving
(e.g., standard barges, etc.), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m,
operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum
level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This
type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of
the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the
substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);
Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual
monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted;
For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take
has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal and drilling
will shut down immediately if such species are observed within or on a
path towards the monitoring zone (i.e., Level B harassment zone); and
If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized
species, pile installation will be stopped as these species approach
the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
The following measures would apply to WP&YR's mitigation
requirements:
Establishment of Shutdown Zone for Level A Harassment--For all pile
[[Page 64559]]
driving/removal and drilling activities, WP&YR would establish a
shutdown zone. 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). Conservative shutdown zones of 150 m for low- and high-
frequency cetaceans, 80 m for phocid pinnipeds, and 10 m for mid-
frequency cetaceans and otariid pinnipeds would be used during all
drilling and vibratory pile driving/removal activities to prevent
incidental Level A harassment exposure for these activities (Table 13).
During impact pile driving a 150 m zone would be used for all species
except for low-frequency cetacean for which a 2,000 m zone will be
used. These shutdown zones would be used to prevent incidental Level A
exposures from impact pile driving for mid-frequency cetaceans and
otariid pinnipeds, and to reduce the potential for such take for other
species (Table 13). The placement of Protected Species Observers (PSOs)
during all pile driving and drilling activities (described in detail in
the Monitoring and Reporting Section) will ensure shutdown zones are
visible. The 150 m zone is the practical distance WP&YR anticipates
phocid pinnipeds and high-frequency cetaceans can be effectively
observed in the project area. The 2,000 m zone for low-frequency
cetaceans is determined by the width of Taiya Inlet at Skagway Harbor.
Observers will be present on vessels in the Taiya Inlet and able to
observe large whales traveling north into the inlet and project area.
Table 13--Monitoring and Shutdown Zones for Each Project Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring
Source zone (m) Shutdown zone (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling and Vibratory 13,000 Low- and high-
Installation/Removal. frequency cetaceans:
150.
Phocid pinnipeds: 80.
Mid-frequency cetaceans
and otariid pinnipeds:
10.
Impact Installation............ 3,400 Low-frequency
cetaceans: 2,000.
All other species: 150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of Monitoring Zones for Level B Harassment--WP&YR
would establish monitoring zones to correlate with Level B disturbance
zones or zones of influence which are areas where SPLs are equal to or
exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for impact driving and the 120 dB rms
threshold during vibratory driving and drilling. Monitoring zones
provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for
areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers
to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the
project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for a potential
cease of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. The
proposed monitoring zones are described in Table 13. The monitoring
zone for drilling and vibratory pile driving/removal activities is
13,000 m, corresponding to the maximum distance before landfall.
Placement of PSOs on vessels in the Taiya Inlet allow PSOs to observe
marine mammals traveling north into the inlet and Skagway Harbor.
Should PSOs determine the monitoring zone cannot be effectively
observed in its entirety, Level B harassment exposures will be recorded
and extrapolated based upon the number of observed take and the
percentage of the Level B zone that was not visible.
Soft Start--The use of soft-start procedures are believed to
provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning
and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the
hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors
would be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer
at reduced energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second waiting
period. This procedure would be conducted a total of three times before
impact pile driving begins. Soft start would be implemented at the
start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following
cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or
longer. Soft start is not required during vibratory pile driving and
removal activities.
Pre-Activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-water
construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/removal or
drilling of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown
and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will
be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone
for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the
shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left
the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. If the Level B
harassment zone has been observed for 30 minutes and non-permitted
species are not present within the zone, soft start procedures can
commence and work can continue even if visibility becomes impaired
within the Level B monitoring zone. When a marine mammal permitted for
Level B take is present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may
begin and Level B take will be recorded. As stated above, if the entire
Level B zone is not visible at the start of construction, piling or
drilling activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes,
the pre-activity monitoring of both the Level B and shutdown zone will
commence.
Due to the depth of the water column and strong currents present at
the project site, bubble curtains would not be implemented as they
would not be effective in this environment.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as to ensuring that the most value is obtained from
the required monitoring.
[[Page 64560]]
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine Mammal Visual Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers. Trained
observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to
monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures
when applicable through communication with the equipment operator.
Observer training must be provided prior to project start, and shall
include instruction on species identification (sufficient to
distinguish the species in the project area), description and
categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors
that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity,
proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of
biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups
of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to
individuals (to the extent possible).
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving/removal and drilling activities. In
addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document
any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being
driven or removed. Pile driving/removal and drilling activities include
the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long
as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no
more than 30 minutes.
A total of five PSOs would be based on land and vessels. During all
pile driving/removal and drilling activities observers will be
stationed at the Railroad Dock, Yakutania Point, and Dyea Point. These
stations will allow full monitoring of the impact hammer monitoring
zone and the Level A shutdown zones. The vibratory and drilling
monitoring zone will be additionally monitored using two PSOs stationed
on boats anchored near the shoreline, with each team (vessel operator
and observer) stationed approximately 2 km apart in the inlet south of
the project site (Figure 2 in the WP&YR Marine Mammal Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan).
PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting
scopes, and would use a handheld GPS or range-finder device to verify
the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs would be
trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required
to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In
addition, monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will
be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for
marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable
by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. WP&YR would adhere
to the following observer qualifications:
(i) Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are
required.
(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (degree in
biological science or related field) or training for experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one
observer shall be designated as lead observer or monitoring
coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an
observer.
(v) WP&YR shall submit observer CVs for approval by NMFS.
Additional standard observer qualifications include:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals, including the identification of
behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal and
drilling activities. It will include an overall description of work
completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and
associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of
marine mammals;
Description of any observable marine mammal behavior
patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from
pile driving activity;
Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals
and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
Other human activity in the area.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report will constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA
(if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, WP&YR
would immediately cease the
[[Page 64561]]
specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include
the following information:
Description of the incident;
Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state,
visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with WP&YR to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WP&YR would not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that WP&YR discovers an injured or dead marine mammal,
and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is
unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a
moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph),
WP&YR would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work
with WP&YR to determine whether modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that WP&YR discovers an injured or dead marine mammal
and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated
with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g.,
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), WP&YR would report the incident to
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email
to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the
discovery. WP&YR would provide photographs, video footage (if
available), or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Acoustic Monitoring
WP&YR will conduct acoustic monitoring for the purposes of SSV.
WP&YR will collect acoustic data for at least one 42-inch permanent
pile, using all three installation methods (impact pile driving,
vibratory pile driving, and down-the-hole drilling) from at least two
distances from the pile (one approximately 10 meters from the pile and
at least one additional measurement in the far field). The following
data, at minimum, shall be collected during acoustic monitoring and
reported:
Hydrophone equipment and methods: recording device,
sampling rate, distance from the pile where recordings were made; depth
of recording device(s);
Type of pile (42-inch), and segment of pile (1, 2, or 3),
being driven and method of driving/removal or drilling during
recordings; and
Mean, median, maximum (or 90th percentile), and range
sound levels (dB re 1[micro]Pa): cumulative sound exposure level
(SELCUM), peak sound pressure level (SPLPK), root
mean square sound pressure level (SPLRMS), and single-strike
sound exposure level (SELS-S) as appropriate for the sound
source.
For more details please see WP&YR's acoustic monitoring plan,
available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Pile driving/removal and drilling activities associated with the
Railroad Dock installation project as outlined previously, have the
potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the
specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from
pile driving and removal and down-the-hole drilling. Potential takes
could occur if individuals of these species are present in the
ensonified zone when these activities are underway.
The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to
potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No mortality is
anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. Level A
harassment is only anticipated for humpback whales, Dall's porpoise,
harbor porpoise, and harbor seal. The potential for harassment is
minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the
planned mitigation measures (see Proposed Mitigation section).
As described previously, minke whales are considered rare in the
proposed project area and we have proposed to authorize only nominal
and precautionary take of two individuals. Therefore, we do not expect
meaningful impacts to minke whales and preliminarily find that the
total minke whale take from each of the specified activities will have
a negligible impact on this species.
For remaining species, we discuss the likely effects of the
specified activities in greater detail. Effects on individuals that are
taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature
as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be
limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased
surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring)
(e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma 2014; ABR 2016).
Most likely, individuals will simply move away from the sound source
and be temporarily displaced
[[Page 64562]]
from the areas of pile driving and drilling, although even this
reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact
pile driving. The pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to,
or less impactful than, numerous other construction activities
conducted in southeast Alaska, which have taken place with no known
long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Level B
harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse
impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if
sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing,
animals are likely to simply avoid the area while the activity is
occurring. While vibratory driving and drilling associated with the
proposed project may produce sound at distances of many kilometers from
the project site, thus intruding on some habitat, the project site
itself is located in a busy harbor and the majority of sound fields
produced by the specified activities are close to the harbor.
Therefore, we expect that animals annoyed by project sound would simply
avoid the area and use more-preferred habitats.
In addition to the expected effects resulting from authorized Level
B harassment, we anticipate that humpback whales, harbor porpoises,
Dall's porpoises, and harbor seals may sustain some limited Level A
harassment in the form of auditory injury. However, animals in these
locations that experience PTS would likely only receive slight PTS,
i.e. minor degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of
hearing that align most completely with the energy produced by pile
driving, i.e. the low-frequency region below 2 kHz, not severe hearing
impairment or impairment in the regions of greatest hearing
sensitivity. If hearing impairment occurs, it is most likely that the
affected animal would lose a few decibels in its hearing sensitivity,
which in most cases is not likely to meaningfully affect its ability to
forage and communicate with conspecifics. As described above, we expect
that marine mammals would be likely to move away from a sound source
that represents an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would
be expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice through use of
soft start.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse
effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities
would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant
amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of
disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging
opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because
of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area
of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal
habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative
consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
Conduct the majority of pile driving/removal and drilling
work outside of the eulachon run, minimizing harassment of marine
mammals during important foraging times;
The Level A harassment exposures are anticipated to result
only in slight PTS, within the lower frequencies associated with pile
driving;
The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist
of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would not result
in fitness impacts to individuals;
The specified activity and ensonification area is very
small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and does
not include habitat areas of special significance (BIAs or ESA-
designated critical habitat); and
The presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures
in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least
practicable adverse impact.
In addition, although affected humpback whales and Steller sea
lions may be from a DPS that is listed under the ESA, it is unlikely
that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would
have any effect on the stocks' ability to recover. In combination, we
believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence
from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects
of the specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on
individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates
of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-
level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or
spatial scale of the activities.
Table 12 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed
to received noise levels that could cause Level A harassment and Level
B harassment for the proposed work in the WP&YR project area. With the
exception of the Northern Resident and West Coast Transient killer
whale stocks and harbor seals, our analysis shows that less than 25
percent of each affected stock could be taken by harassment. The
numbers of animals proposed to be taken for these stocks would be
considered small relative to the relevant stock's abundances even if
each estimated taking occurred to a new individual--an extremely
unlikely scenario.
The total proposed authorized take for killer whales as compared to
each potentially affected stock ranges from 3.4 percent to 32.9 percent
of each stock abundance. In reality, it is highly unlikely that 80
individuals of any one killer whale stock will be temporarily harassed.
Instead, it is assumed that there will be a relatively brief period of
takes of a smaller number of the same individuals from any stock (20,
which is representative of the estimated group size, or 40, if
individuals from the same stock are taken), which would result in
smaller percentages of stocks (ranging from 0.9 percent to 8.2 percent
if 20 whales from the same stock, or 1.7 percent to 16.5 percent if 40
whales from the same stock). We make this assumption because the Alaska
and Northern resident stocks are known to occasionally occur in Taiya
Inlet, but other stocks' (e.g., transients) range extends into the
project area, and therefore they may occur in the upper reaches of Lynn
Canal into Taiya Inlet towards Skagway, albeit infrequently. Takes are
not assumed to include multiple harassments of the same individual(s),
resulting in estimates of
[[Page 64563]]
proposed take as a percentage of stock abundance that are high compared
to actual take that will occur. This is the case with the resident
stocks of killer whale and harbor seal (Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage
stock).
As reported, a small number of harbor seals, most of which reside
in Taiya Inlet year-round, will be exposed to construction activities
for three months. The total population estimate in the Lynn Canal/
Stephens Passage stock is 9,478 animals over 1.37 million acres (5,500
km\2\) of area in their range, which results in an estimated density of
36 animals within Taiya Inlet. The largest Level B harassment zone
within the inlet occupies 17.9 km\2\, which represents less than 0.4
percent of the total geographical area occupied by the stock. The great
majority of these exposures will be to the same animals given their
residency patterns.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. The proposed
project will occur near but not overlap with the subsistence area used
by the villages of Hoonah and Angoon (Wolfe et al. 2013; N. Kovaces,
Skagway Traditional Council, personal communication). Harbor seals and
Steller sea lions are available for subsistence harvest in this area
(Wolfe et al. 2013). Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that
the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or
stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the Alaska Regional Office,
whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened
species.
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of the Steller sea lion western
DPS and humpback whale Mexico DPS, which are listed under the ESA. On
November 29, 2018, the NMFS Office of Protected Resources has requested
initiation of section 7 consultation with the Alaska Regional Office
for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation
prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of
the authorization.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to WP&YR for conducting the Railroad Dock dolphin
installation project in Skagway, Alaska from February 1, 2019 through
April 30, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the
IHA itself is available for review in conjunction with this notice at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed
action. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this
proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help
inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA
without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section,
provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates,
or mitigation and monitoring requirements.
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate,
and the original findings remain valid.
Dated: December 12, 2018.
Donna S. Weiting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-27258 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
