Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Project, Juneau, Alaska, 12523-12540 [2020-04280]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
—Other Business
The order of business may be adjusted
as necessary to accommodate the
completion of agenda items. Other than
the start time, interested parties should
be aware that discussions may start
earlier or later than indicated.
Special Accommodations
These meetings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
For more information or request for sign
language interpretation and other
auxiliary aids, please contact Mr.
Miguel A. Rolo´n, Executive Director,
Caribbean Fishery Management Council,
270 Mun˜oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401,
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903,
telephone: (787) 766–5926, at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2020.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–04336 Filed 3–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XR099]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Ward Cove
Cruise Ship Dock Project, Juneau,
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 Power Systems & Supplies of
Alaska (PSSA) for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to Ward
Cove Cruise Ship Dock Project near
Ketchikan, 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
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 April 2, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Physical
comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910
and electronic comments should be sent
to ITP.Meadows@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/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–
8401. Electronic copies of the
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document, may be obtained
online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case
of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12523
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 the 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 the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable
MMPA statutory terms cited above are
included in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization)
with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On December 30, 2019, NMFS
received a request from PSSA for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental
to Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Project
near Ketchikan, Alaska. The application
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12524
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
was deemed adequate and complete on
February 5, 2020. PSSA’s request is for
take of harbor seals by Level B
harassment and Level A harassment.
Neither PSSA nor NMFS expects serious
injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The project consists of the
construction of a cruise ship dock for
two cruise ships in Ward Cove,
approximately eight kilometers (5 miles)
north of downtown Ketchikan, Alaska.
PSSA would install a pile supported
500-foot by 70-foot floating pontoon
dock, mooring structures, and shoreaccess transfer span and trestle. The
project includes the following in-water
components: Driving one hundred and
two 30–48 inch diameter steel pipe piles
to support the structures and removal of
48 of these piles (all 30-inch diameter)
that are being used solely as templates
to guide installation of larger permanent
piles. It is expected to take no more than
105 days of in-water work. Pile driving
would be by vibratory pile driving until
resistance is too great and driving would
switch to an impact hammer. Removal
of temporary piles would use vibratory
methods only. Forty larger 36- and 48inch piles would also be rock anchored
into place using a down-the-hole (DTH)
drill.
The pile driving/removal or rock
anchoring can result in take of marine
mammals from sound in the water
which results in behavioral harassment
or auditory injury. The footprint of the
project is approximately 1.5 square
miles around the project site.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
Dates and Duration
The work for which take will be
authorized began in February 2020. In
the time period before we authorize take
the applicant has agreed with us to shut
down pile driving anytime marine
mammals are seen in the Level B
Harassment Zone of the project area (see
below). PSSA believes they are able to
avoid unauthorized take through the use
of mitigation and monitoring measures
agreed described in their application.
Because we do not know exactly when
an IHA will be issued, nor exactly how
much of the project activities will be
complete when an authorization is in
place, we may lower the take
authorization at final issuance of this
IHA. Under an existing permit issued by
the Army Corps of Engineers and an
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7
Letter of Concurrence issued by NMFS,
impact pile driving will cease by June
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
30 to protect endangered salmon and
vibratory pile driving and rock
anchoring will cease by July 31 to
protect other ESA listed species. PSSA
has proposed the daily construction
window for pile removal and driving
would begin no sooner than 30 minutes
after sunrise and would end 30 minutes
prior to sunset to allow for marine
mammal monitoring.
Specific Geographic Region
The project site is located in Ward
Cove north of Ketchikan, Alaska (Figure
1). Ward Cove is a small estuary with an
area of approximately 1 square
kilometer (0.4 square mile) located off
the western coast of Revillagigedo
Island and on the North Shore of
Tongass Narrows. The cove is
approximately 1.6 kilometers long (1
mile) and 0.8 kilometers (0.5 mile) wide
with depths to 60 meters (200 feet) (EPA
2015, NOAA 2016). The cove has
experienced significant industrialization
as it was the former site of a pulp mill,
sawmill, and fish processing plant.
Effluent and materials from these former
industries polluted the cove. The
bottom substrate is organic-rich
sediments areas overlaid with either
sandy material that has been thinly
placed (‘‘capped;’’ 15–23 inches thick)
or sandy material that has been
mounded (approximately 1.45 meters
thick) as a remediation requirement for
the earlier pollution. Deep water areas
have deep organic sediments with no
sandy overlay. Some areas have a high
density of old sunken logs from the
sawmill operations (Exponent 2000).
Silt curtains will be used around pile
driving operations and sediments
captured as drill cutting discharge will
be removed (see below) and will trap
most suspended sediments and prevent
dispersal into the wider environment.
Sound from project activities is
expected to also move into Tongass
Narrows. Tongass Narrows is a Ushaped glacier-carved fjord that varies
between 300 meters (0.2 mile) to 2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) wide and 15
meters (49 feet) to 55 meters (180 feet)
deep (ADEC 2017, NOAA 2016).
Tongass Narrows is known for strong
tidal currents and unusually large tidal
ranges of 8 meters (feet) or more (Pentec
2001). The Narrows are characterized by
steep bedrock or coarse gravel-cobbleboulder shoreline.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The proposed project includes the
installation of steel piles to support a
new 500-foot by 70-foot floating
pontoon dock, mooring structures, and
shore-access transfer span and trestle.
The project will:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Install 48 temporary 30-inch
diameter steel piles as templates to
guide proper installation of permanent
piles (these temporary piles would be
removed prior to project completion);
• Install 14 permanent 30-inch
diameter piles, 20 permanent 36-inch
diameter piles, and 20 permanent 48inch diameter piles to support a new
500-foot x 70-foot floating pontoon
dock, mooring structures, and shoreaccess transfer span and trestle for a
total of 54 piles;
• Install dock components such as
bull rail, floating fenders, mooring
cleats, vehicle driveway, curb,
passenger walkway, hand rail, and mast
lights.
The temporary, 30-inch diameter piles
serving as a template would be installed
and removed using a vibratory hammer.
The 14 permanent 30-inch trestle piles
will be installed through sand and
gravel with a vibratory hammer and
impact hammer. The 54 permanent 36inch and 48-inch diameter piles will be
driven through sand and gravel with a
vibratory hammer and then impact
driven into bedrock. After being
impacted, these piles will be rock
anchored. To rock anchor the pile, a
DTH hammer with a 33-inch-diameter
bit will be used to drill a shaft into the
bedrock. The drill bit will be removed,
and the shaft will be filled with vertical
reinforcement (a rebar cage) in concrete
to secure the pile. The depth of the shaft
is to be determined by a geotechnical
engineer prior to construction. During
anchor drilling the pile will not be
touched by the drill, and no steel-onsteel hammer noise will be generated.
As much as possible, the hammer will
be operated at a reduced energy setting.
The contractor will use high-density
polyethylene or ultra-high-molecularweight polyethylene softening material
(pile caps) on all templates to eliminate
steel on steel noise generation.
In-water construction of the cruise
ship dock will begin with installation of
the trestle. Once the trestle is
constructed, dolphins will be
constructed. Trestle and dolphin
construction will follow this sequence:
(1) Vibrate 32 temporary 30-inchdiameter piles for the trestle, and 16
temporary 30-inch diameter piles for the
dolphins, a minimum of 10 feet into
overburden to create a template to guide
installation of permanent piles;
(2) Weld a template frame around the
temporary piles;
(3) Within the template frame, vibrate
and impact 14 permanent 30-inch
diameter piles into place for the trestle;
or vibrate, impact, and rock anchor 20
permanent 36-inch and 20 48-inch
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
diameter piles into place for the
dolphins;
(4) Remove the template frame and
temporary piles; and
(5) Perform this sequence at the seven
trestle bent locations, working farther
from the shoreline each sequence. Once
the trestle is completed perform this
sequence at the eight dolphin locations.
After all piles are installed,
construction will proceed with
installation of the floating dock, transfer
span, trestle, mechanical systems, and
other above-water components like the
vehicle driveway, passenger walkway,
and mast lights. Two barges and two
small boats will be used to facilitate the
construction, transport and stage
materials, and support protected species
monitoring. Additional standard barges,
tug boats, or clamshell equipment will
12525
be used to place or remove material
(including submerged logs) and position
piles on the substrate via a crane.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SARs; https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marine-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
mammal-stock-assessments) and more
general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s
website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 1 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence in the project
area near Ketchikan, Alaska 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 (2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’s
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated
or authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
EN03MR20.000
Figure 1. Map of proposed project area near Ketchikan, Alaska.
12526
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
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’s U.S. Alaska SARs (e.g., Muto et
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
al. 2019). All values presented in Table
1 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available in
the 2019 draft SARs (Muto et al., 2019).
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
MMPA stock
I
ESA/
MMPA
status;
Strategic
(Y/N) 1
I
Stock abundance Nbest,
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
I
I
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray Whale .........................
Eschrichtius robustus ................
Eastern North Pacific ................
-, -, N
26,960 (0.05, 25,849,
2016).
801
138
Family Balaenidae:
Humpback whale ................
Minke whale ...............................
Fin whale ...................................
Megaptera novaeangliae ..........
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ......
Balaenoptera physalus .............
Central North Pacific .................
Alaska .......................................
Northeast Pacific .......................
E, D,Y
-, N
E, D, Y
10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 2006)
N.A. .................................
N.A. .................................
83
N.A.
5.1
25
N.A.
0.4
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale .........................
Pacific white-sided dolphin
Family Phocoenidae:
Harbor porpoise ..................
Dall’s porpoise ....................
Orcinus orca .............................
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ....
Alaska Resident ........................
West Coast Transient ...............
Northern Resident .....................
North Pacific .............................
-, N
-, N
-, N
-,-; N
2,347 (N.A.; 2,347; 2012)
243 (N.A, 243, 2009) ......
302 (N.A.; 302, 2018) .....
26,880 (N.A.; N.A.; 1990)
24
2.4
2.2
N.A.
1
0
0.2
0
Phocoena phocoena .................
Phocoenoides dalli ....................
Southeast Alaska ......................
Alaska .......................................
-, Y
-, N
975 (0.10; 896; 2012) .....
N.A. .................................
8.95
N.A.
34
38
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
Steller sea lion ....................
Eumetopias jubatus ..................
Eastern U.S. .............................
-,-, N
43,201 (N.A.; 43,201;
2017).
2,592
113
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal .........................
Phoca vitulina richardii ..............
Clarence Strait ..........................
-, N
27,659 (N.A.; 24,854;
2015).
746
40
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
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. 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’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated
mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
All 10 species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas are
included in Table 1. However, the
temporal and/or spatial occurrence and
mitigation measures implemented for
seven species (all in Table 1 except
harbor seals, Dall’s porpoise, and harbor
porpoise) is such that take is not
expected to occur, and they are not
discussed further beyond the
explanation provided here. These seven
species are not expected to have take
occur because the applicant will shut
down pile driving and rock anchoring
activities if these species are observed
within the Level B harassment zone
defined below. Additionally, minke
whale, fin whale, gray whale, Pacific
white-sided dolphins and killer whales
are rare in the area. The applicant only
requested take of harbor seals (see
above), but we believe the cryptic
nature, small size, and dive duration of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
Dall’s porpoise and harbor porpoise
make it possible that these two species
could also be taken. Therefore we
propose to authorize take for these
species (see below) and PSSA
concurred.
In addition, the northern sea otter
may be found in the project vicinity.
However, that species is managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is
not considered further in this document.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) inhabit
coastal and estuarine waters off Alaska.
They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches,
and drifting glacial ice. They are
opportunistic feeders and often adjust
their distribution to take advantage of
locally and seasonally abundant prey
(Womble et al., 2009, Allen and Angliss,
2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Harbor seals occurring in the project
area belong to the Clarence Strait stock.
Distribution of the Clarence Strait stock
ranges from the east coast of Prince of
Wales Island from Cape Chacon north
through Clarence Strait to Point Baker
and along the east coast of Mitkof and
Kupreanof Islands north to Bay Point,
including Ernest Sound, Behm Canal,
and Pearse Canal (Muto et al. 2019). In
the project area, they tend to be more
abundant during spring, summer and
fall months when salmon are present in
Ward Creek. Anecdotal evidence
indicates that harbor seals typically
occur in groups of 1–3 animals in Ward
Cove (Spokely 2019). They were not
observed in Tongass Narrows during a
combined 63.5 hours of marine mammal
monitoring that took place in 2001 and
2016 (OSSA 2001, Turnagain 2016).
There are no known harbor seal
haulouts within the project area.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
According to the list of harbor seal
haulout locations, the closest listed
haulouts are located off the tip of
Gravina Island, approximately eight
kilometers (five miles) northwest of
Ward Cove (AFSC 2018).
Dall’s Porpoise
Dall’s porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli)
are found throughout the North Pacific,
from southern Japan to southern
California north to the Bering Sea. All
Dall’s porpoises in Alaska are members
of the Alaska stock. This species can be
found in offshore, inshore, and
nearshore habitat.
Jefferson et al. (2019) presents
historical survey data showing few
sightings in the Ketchikan area. The
mean group size in Southeast Alaska is
estimated at approximately three
individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009,
Jefferson et al. 2019), although Freitag
(2017, as cited in 83 FR 37473)
suggested group sizes near Ketchikan
range from 10 to 15 individuals.
Anecdotal reports suggest that Dall’s
porpoises are found northwest of
Ketchikan near the Guard Islands,
where waters are deeper, as well as in
deeper waters to the southeast of
Tongass Narrows. This species has a
tendency to bow-ride with vessels and
may occur in the action area
incidentally a few times per year.
Harbor Porpoise
In the eastern North Pacific Ocean,
the harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena) ranges from Point Barrow,
along the Alaska coast, and down the
west coast of North America to Point
Conception, California. The Southeast
Alaska stock ranges from Cape Suckling
to the Canadian border (Muto et al.
2019). Harbor porpoises frequent
primarily coastal waters in Southeast
Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009) and occur
most frequently in waters less than 100
meters (328 feet) deep (Dahlheim et al.
2015). They are not attracted to areas
with elevated levels of vessel activity
and noise such as Tongass Narrows.
Studies of harbor porpoises reported
no evidence of seasonal changes in
distribution for the inland waters of
Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Their small overall size, lack of a visible
blow, low dorsal fins and overall low
profile, and short surfacing time make
them difficult to spot (Dahlheim et al.
2015). Ketchikan area densities are
expected to be low. This is supported by
anecdotal estimates. Anecdotal reports
(see IHA Application) specific to
Tongass Narrows indicate that harbor
porpoises are rarely observed in the
action area. Harbor porpoises are
expected to be present in the action area
only a few times per year.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
12527
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 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine
mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided
in Table 2.
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[NMFS, 2018]
Generalized hearing
range*
Hearing group
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) .....................................................................................................................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...........................................
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ...................................................................................................................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ..............................................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ 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. Harbor seals are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
in the phocid group and Dall’s and
harbor porpoises are classified as highfrequency cetaceans.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
12528
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
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, 1995). 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 rock anchoring. 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., 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 Sound pressure
Levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater,
but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than
SPLs generated during impact pile
driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman
et al., 2009). Rise time is slower,
reducing the probability and severity of
injury, and sound energy is distributed
over a greater amount of time (Nedwell
and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al.,
2005).
Rock anchoring would be conducted
using a DTH drill inserted through the
hollow steel piles. A DTH 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 DTH drilling
method are considered continuous as
the noise from the drilling component is
expected to be dominant. In addition,
the method in this case likely increases
sound attenuation because the noise is
primarily contained within the steel pile
and below ground as opposed to impact
hammer driving methods which occur
at the top of the pile and introduce
sound into the water column to a greater
degree. See our detailed discussion of
this sound source in the notice of
issuance of an IHA for Ferry Berth
Improvements in Tongass Narrows,
Alaska https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2020-01-07/pdf/202000038.pdf.
The likely or possible impacts of
PSSA’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
equipment and personnel; however, any
impacts to marine mammals are
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 rock
anchoring is the primary means by
which marine mammals may be
harassed from PSSA’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). Generally,
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
recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to
days), the frequency range of the
exposure (i.e., spectral content), the
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
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., 2014), and the overlap
between the animal and the source (e.g.,
spatial, temporal, and spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)—
NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals
indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset (see Ward et
al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et
al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al.,
1996; Henderson and Hu, 2008). PTS
levels for marine mammals are
estimates, 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
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). The
potential for TTS from impact pile
driving exists. After exposure to
playbacks of impact pile driving sounds
(rate 2760 strikes/hour) in captivity,
mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15
minute exposure to 5 dB after 360
minute exposure; recovery occurred
within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al.,
2016). 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 DTH 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12529
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 and C of
Southall et al. (2007) for a review of
studies involving marine mammal
behavioral responses to sound.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
12530
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.,
2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et
al., 2007). A determination of whether
foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
In 2016, the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) documented observations
of marine mammals during construction
activities (i.e., pile driving and DTH
drilling) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see
80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015). 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 PSSA’s
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 DTH drilling projects in
Alaska have observed similar behaviors
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
(for example, the Biorka Island Dock
Replacement Project https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-faabiorka-island-dock-replacement-projectsitka-ak).
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-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. The Ketchikan area contains
active commercial shipping, cruise ship
and ferry operations, as well as
numerous recreational and other
commercial vessels; therefore,
background sound levels in the area 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 DTH
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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Moreover, there are no known haulout
areas near the project. 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
PSSA’s construction activities in
Ward Cove 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 Ward Cove and
adjacent Tongass Narrows where both
fishes 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.
In-water pile driving, pile removal,
and drilling activities would also cause
short-term effects on water quality due
to increased turbidity. The use of silt
curtains and the removal of sediments
captured as drill cutting discharge (see
below) will trap most suspended
sediments and prevent dispersal into
the wider environment. Local strong
currents are anticipated to disburse any
additional suspended sediments
produced by project activities at
moderate to rapid rates depending on
tidal stage. PSSA would employ other
standard construction best management
practices (see section 11 in application),
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
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 (e.g., most of the
impacted area is limited to Ward Cove)
and does not include any Biologically
Important Areas or other habitat of
known importance. Pile installation/
removal and drilling may temporarily
increase turbidity resulting from
suspended sediments. Any increases
would be temporary, localized, and
minimal. PSSA must comply with state
water quality standards during these
operations by using silt curtains and
removing all sediments captured as drill
cutting discharge to upland disposal
sites. In general, turbidity associated
with pile installation is localized to
about a 25-foot radius around the pile
(Everitt et al., 1980). 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.
The duration of the construction
activities is relatively short. The
construction window is for a maximum
of 4–5 months. 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 and small size of Ward Cove.
In-water Construction Effects on
Potential Prey (Fish)— Construction
activities would produce continuous
(i.e., vibratory pile driving and DTH
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
There are times of known seasonal
marine mammal foraging in Tongass
Narrows around fish processing/
hatchery infrastructure or when fish are
congregating, but the impacted areas of
Tongass Narrows are a small portion of
the total foraging habitat available in the
region. In general, impacts to marine
mammal prey species are expected to be
minor and temporary due to the short
timeframe of the project and the small
project footprint.
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
Tongass Narrows region are routinely
exposed to substantial levels of
suspended sediment from glacial
sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12531
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
acoustic source (i.e., vibratory or impact
pile driving or DTH 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 for pinnipeds
because predicted auditory injury zones
are larger and harbor seals are the only
animals routinely seen in Ward Cove.
The proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the severity of the 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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12532
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
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). Due to the
lack of marine marine mammal density,
NMFS relied on local occurrence data
and group size to estimate take. Below,
we describe the factors considered here
in more detail and present the proposed
take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received
level of underwater sound above which
exposed marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally
harassed (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
mammals are likely to be behaviorally
harassed in a manner we consider Level
B harassment when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1
microPascal (mPa) (root mean square
(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory
pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB
re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive
impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) or
intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar)
sources.
PSSA’s proposed activity includes the
use of continuous (vibratory piledriving, DTH drilling) and impulsive
(impact pile-driving) sources, and
therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa
(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)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
dual criteria to assess auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to five different
marine mammal groups (based on
hearing sensitivity) as a result of
exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). PSSA’s 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 acoustic 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) ............................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
9:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........................
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .......................
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s.
In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
generated by the primary components of
the project (i.e., impact pile driving,
vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile
removal, and DTH drilling).
Vibratory hammers produce constant
sound when operating, and produce
vibrations that liquefy the sediment
surrounding the pile, allowing it to
penetrate to the required seating depth.
An impact hammer would then
generally be used to place the pile at its
intended depth through rock or harder
substrates. The actual durations of each
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
installation method vary depending on
the type and size of the pile. An impact
hammer is a steel device that works like
a piston, producing a series of
independent strikes to drive the pile.
Impact hammering typically generates
the loudest noise associated with pile
installation.
In order to calculate distances to the
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment sound thresholds for piles of
various sizes being used in this project,
NMFS used acoustic monitoring data
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
from other locations to develop source
levels (see Table 4). Note that piles of
differing sizes have different sound
source levels (SSLs).
Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF
sound source verification (SSV) studies
at Ketchikan were used to estimate
sound source levels for vibratory and
impact driving of 30-inch steel pipe
piles and Kodiak for drilling (Denes et
al. 2016). Data from Ketchikan was used
because of its proximity to this
proposed project in Tongass Narrows
and Kodiak drilling data was used as a
proxy here because of its relative
proximity. Details are described below.
The source level for rock anchoring
was derived from the above mentioned
ADOT&PF SSV study at Kodiak, Alaska.
The reported median source value for
12533
drilling was determined to be 166.2 dB
rms for all pile types (Denes et al. 2016,
Table 72). See our detailed discussion of
this sound source in the notice of
issuance of an IHA for Ferry Berth
Improvements in Tongass Narrows,
Alaska https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2020-01-07/pdf/202000038.pdf
TABLE 4—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE
INSTALLATION, DRILLING, AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL
Method and pile type
Sound source level at 10
meters
Vibratory Hammer .................................................................................
30-inch steel piles .................................................................................
36-inch steel piles .................................................................................
48-inch steel piles .................................................................................
Drilling Rock Anchors ............................................................................
All pile diameters ...........................................................................
dB rms
161.9
168.2
168.2
dB rms
166.2
Impact Hammer
All pile diameters ...................................................................................
dB peak
212 ..............
I
Literature source
Denes et al. 2016, Table 72.
Austin et al. 2016, Table 16.
Austin et al. 2016, Table 16.
Denes et al. 2016, Table 72.
dB SS SEL
186.7 ...........
Austin et al. 2016, Tables 9, 16.
Note: It is assumed that noise levels during pile installation and removal are similar. Use of an impact hammer will be limited to 5–10 minutes
per pile, if necessary. It is assumed that drilling produces the same SSL for both pile diameters. SS SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB
peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square.
Level B Harassment Zones
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),
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
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
The recommended TL coefficient for
most nearshore environments is the,
practical spreading value of 15. This
value results in an expected propagation
environment that would lie between
spherical and cylindrical spreading loss
conditions, which is the most
appropriate assumption for PSSA’s
proposed activity.
Using the practical spreading model,
PSSA determined underwater noise
would fall below the behavioral effects
threshold of 120 dB rms for marine
mammals at a maximum radial distance
of 16,343 m for vibratory pile driving
the 36 and 48-inch diameter piles. This
distance determines the maximum Level
B harassment zone for the project. Other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
activities, including rock anchoring and
impact pile driving, have smaller Level
B harassment zones. All Level B
harassment isopleths are reported in
Table 5 below and visualized in Figure
6 and Table 5 in the IHA application. It
should be noted that based on the
geography of Ward Cove, Tongass
Narrows and the surrounding islands,
sound will not reach the full distance of
the Level B harassment isopleth.
Generally, due to interaction with land,
only a thin slice of the possible area is
ensonified and the maximum distance
before reaching land barriers is 3,645 m.
TABLE 5—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO
LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL
Level B
isopleth
(m)
Pile size
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
30-inch piles ..............................
36-inch piles ..............................
48-inch piles ..............................
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles ..............................
36-inch piles ..............................
48-inch piles ..............................
Rock Anchoring:
36-inch piles ..............................
48-inch piles ..............................
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6,213
16,343
16,343
3,744
3,744
3,744
12,023
12,023
Level A Harassment Zones
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 take by Level A
harassment. 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 impact/vibratory pile
driving or drilling, NMFS User
Spreadsheet predicts the closest
distance at which, if a marine mammal
remained at that distance the whole
duration of the activity, it would not
incur PTS.
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet
(Table 6), and the resulting isopleths are
reported below (Table 7). Level A
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12534
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
harassment thresholds for impulsive
sound sources (impact pile driving) are
defined for both SELcum and Peak SPL,
with the threshold that results in the
largest modeled isopleth for each
marine mammal hearing group used to
establish the Level A harassment
isopleth. In this project, Level A
harassment isopleths based on SELcum
were always larger than those based on
Peak SPL.
TABLE 6—PARAMETERS OF PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING ACTIVITY USED IN USER SPREADSHEET
Equipment type
Spreadsheet Tab Used
Source Level ...............
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz).
(a)Activity duration
(time) within 24
hours.
(b) Number of
strikes per pile
(impact).
(c) Number of
piles per day.
Propagation (xLogR) ..
Distance of source
level measurement
(meters).
Vibratory pile driver
(installation/removal
of 30-inch steel piles)
Vibratory pile driver
(installation of 36
and 48-inch steel
piles)
Impact pile driver
(30-inch steel piles)
Impact pile driver
(36 and 48-inch steel
piles)
Rock anchor
(36-inch steel piles)
Non-impulsive, continuous.
161.9 SPL ................
2.5 ............................
Non-impulsive, continuous.
168.2 SPL ................
2.5 ............................
Impulsive, Non-continuous.
186.7 SS SEL* .........
2 ...............................
Impulsive, Non-continuous.
186.7 SS SEL* .........
2 ...............................
Non-impulsive, continuous.
166.2 SPL ................
2.5 ............................
Non-impulsive, continuous
166.2 SPL
2.5
(a) 0:40 ....................
(a) 1:00 ....................
..................................
..................................
(a) 8:00 ....................
(a) 5:00
..................................
..................................
(b) 40 .......................
(b) 100 .....................
(240 mins *2) ...........
(300 mins *1)
(c) 4 ..........................
(c) 2 ..........................
(c) 2 ..........................
(c) 2 ..........................
(c) 2 ..........................
(c) 1
15 .............................
10 .............................
15 .............................
10 .............................
15 .............................
10 .............................
15 .............................
10 .............................
15 .............................
10 .............................
15
10
Rock anchor
(48-inch steel piles)
Note: Data for all equipment types were for Propagation (xLogR) = 15 and distance of source level measurements was 10 meters.
* Largest isopleth distances for impact pile driving were all found when using SS SEL (see application for details) and SEL is the preferred metric.
The above input scenarios lead to a
PTS isopleth distance (Level A
threshold) of 3.6 to 322.5 meters,
depending on the marine mammal
group and scenario (Table 7).
TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (m) DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL
FOR EACH HEARING GROUP
Pile size
High
frequency
Low frequency
Mid frequency
6
20.6
20.6
0.5
1.8
1.8
8.8
30.5
30.5
3.6
12.5
12.5
0.3
0.9
0.9
327.2
602.7
602.7
11.6
21.4
21.4
389.7
717.9
717.9
175.1
322.5
322.5
12.7
23.5
23.5
60.7
44.4
5.4
3.9
89.7
65.6
36.9
27
2.6
1.9
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
30-inch piles ..................................................................
36-inch piles ..................................................................
48-inch piles ..................................................................
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles ..................................................................
36-inch piles ..................................................................
48-inch piles ..................................................................
Rock Anchoring:
36-inch piles ..................................................................
48-inch piles ..................................................................
Phocid
Otariid
Note: a 10-meter shutdown zone will be implemented for all species and activity types to prevent direct injury of marine mammals.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of harbor seals that
will inform the take calculations. There
is no density data for any of the species
near Ward Cove.
Harbor Seal
As discussed above anecdotal
evidence suggests maximum group size
is up to three individuals in Ward Cove
at one time. They are known to occur
year-round in the area with little
seasonal variation in abundance (Freitag
(2017) as cited in 83 FR 37473) and
local experts estimate that there are
about 1 to 3 harbor seals in Tongass
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
Narrows every day. To be conservative
we will assume a group size of five
individuals in the project area each day.
(Freitag (2017), as cited in 83 FR37473)
may be present in the project area once
each month during construction.
Dall’s Porpoise
Harbor Porpoise
Dall’s porpoises are expected to only
occur in the action area a few times per
year. Their relative rarity is supported
by Jefferson et al.’s (2019) presentation
of historical survey data showing very
few sightings in the Ketchikan area and
conclusion that Dall’s porpoise
generally are rare in narrow waterways,
like the Tongass Narrows. This species
is non-migratory; therefore, our
occurrence estimates are not dependent
on season. We anticipate that one large
Dall’s porpoise pod (15 individuals)
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory;
therefore, our occurrence estimates are
not dependent on season. Freitag ((2017)
as cited in 83 FR 37473) observed
harbor porpoises in Tongass Narrows
zero to one time per month. Harbor
porpoises observed in the project
vicinity typically occur in groups of one
to five animals with an estimated
maximum group size of eight animals
(83 FR 37473, August 1, 2018, Solstice
2018). For our impact analysis, we are
considering a group to consist of five
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
animals, a value on the high end of the
typical group size. Based on Freitag
(2017), and supported by the reports of
knowledgeable locals as described in
the application for IHA for Tongass
Narrows (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-alaskadepartment-transportation-ferry-berthimprovements), it is estimated that a
maximum two groups (10) of harbor
porpoises would enter Tongass Narrows
and potentially be exposed to project
related noise each of the four months of
the project.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is brought together to
produce a quantitative take estimate. As
noted above, the applicant only
requested take of harbor seals, but we
believe the cryptic nature, small size,
and dive duration of Dall’s porpoise and
harbor porpoise make it possible that
these two species could also be taken by
popping up inside the Level B
harassment zone before shutdown can
occur (see below). We describe how we
estimated their take below.
It is important to note that PSSA
proposes to implement a shutdown of
pile driving activity if any marine
mammal other than harbor seals is
observed within the Level B harassment
zone (see Proposed Mitigation).
Therefore, the proposed take
authorization is intended to provide
insurance against the event that marine
mammals occur within Level B
harassment zones that cannot be fully
observed by monitors. As a result of this
proposed mitigation, we do not believe
that Level A harassment is a likely
outcome for these two species. While
the calculated Level A harassment zone
is as large as 720 m for impact driving
of 48-in steel piles (ranging from 390 m
for other impact driving scenarios), this
requires that an animal be present at
that range for the full assumed duration
of pile strikes (expected to require
multiple hours). Given the PSSA’s
commitment to shut down upon
observation of other marine mammals,
and the rarity of these animals inside
Ward Cove where the Level A
harassment zones will be, we do not
expect that any of these other species
would be present within a Level A
harassment zone for sufficient duration
to actually experience PTS.
Harbor Seals
The take calculation was estimated
based on the conservative group size
from above (5) multiplied by the
number of expected groups per day
multiplied by the number of days of pile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
driving. Based on the anecdotal
observations, it is conservatively
estimated that 2 groups of 5 harbor seals
may occur within the Level B
harassment zone every day that pile
driving may occur. Thus we estimate 5
animals in a group x 2 groups per day
x 105 days = 1,050 times animals would
occur within the Level B harassment
zone. The Level B harassment zones
areas for trestle construction and
mooring dolphin construction differ in
size because more sound is expected to
leak out of the cove into Tongass
Narrows when construction on the
dolphins is toward the middle of the
cove (see Figure 6 of application).
Nevertheless, it is expected that most of
the take will occur within Ward Cove
(not Tongass Narrows) where the action
areas for trestle and dolphin
construction overlap and are identical
in size, so take is not reduced despite
the smaller area of trestle effects.
The Level A harassment zone for
harbor seals for impact pile driving of
30-inch piles is 175 meters, and for
impact driving of 36 and 48-inch piles,
the zone is 325 meters. For other pile
driving activities the zones are much
smaller. Impact pile driving would be
shut down before a harbor seal enters
within 200 meters during impact pile
driving of all piles; however, take by
Level A harassment of harbor seals is
requested outside the 200m shutdown
zone for larger piles with zones
exceeding 200m. Impact driving would
occur for no more than 10 minutes per
day on 20 days of construction. As
above we use group size of 5 individuals
and expect 1 group per day to be
exposed in the Level A harassment
zone. Although mere ‘‘exposure’’ within
the Level A harassment zone is not
indicative of an animal incurring
auditory injury due to the fact that
injury results from accumulation of
energy over an assumed duration of
exposure, we conservatively propose to
authorize 100 Level A harassment takes
of harbor seal (5 animals in a group x
1 groups per day x 20 days = 100
animals). Because these animals
exposed in the Level A harassment zone
duplicate those exposed in the Level B
zone, the authorized Level B harassment
take is the number of Level B
harassment zone exposures minus the
Level A take or 950 animals (1050–100).
Dall’s Porpoise
As discussed above we assume a
single group of 15 individuals in the
project area each month. The take
calculation was estimated based on the
conservative group size from above (15)
multiplied by the number of expected
groups per month (1) multiplied by the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12535
number of months of pile driving for the
project (4). Thus we estimate Level B
harassment take of 60 individuals (15 ×
1 × 4).
Harbor Porpoise
As discussed above we assume a
conservative group size of 5 individuals
occurring no more than twice in the
project area each month. The take
calculation was estimated based on the
group size from above (5) multiplied by
the number of expected groups per
month (2) multiplied by the number of
months of pile driving for the project
(4). Thus we estimate Level B
harassment take of 40 individuals (5 ×
2 × 4).
Effects of Specified Activities on
Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals
The availability of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species for
subsistence uses may be impacted by
this activity. The subsistence uses that
may be affected and the potential
impacts of the activity on those uses are
described below. The information from
this section is analyzed to determine
whether the necessary findings may be
made in the Unmitigable Adverse
Impact Analysis and Determination
section.
Subsistence harvest of harbor seals by
Alaska Natives is not prohibited by the
MMPA. Since surveys of harbor seal
subsistence harvest in Alaska began in
1992, there have been declines in the
number of households hunting and
harvesting seals in Southeast Alaska
(Wolf et al. 2013). Subsistence harvest
data for the Clarence Strait stock
indicates an average annual harvest in
the years 2004–2008 of 164 harbor seals
(80 near Ketchikan) and an average
annual harvest in the years 2011–2012
of 40 harbor seals (summarized in Muto
et al. 2016a from Wolf et al. 2013). In
2008, two Steller sea lions were
harvested by Ketchikan-based
subsistence hunters, but this is the only
record of sea lion harvest by residents
of Ketchikan. In 2012, the community of
Ketchikan had an estimated subsistence
take of 22 harbor seals (Wolf et al. 2013).
This is the most recent data for
Ketchikan. The ADF&G has not
recorded harvest of cetaceans in the area
(ADF&G 2018). Hunting usually occurs
in October and November (ADF&G
2009), but there are also records of
relatively high harvest in May (Wolfe et
al. 2013).
In June 2019, attempts were made by
PSSA to contact the Alaska Harbor Seal
Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and
Steller Sea Lion Commission, and the
Ketchikan Indian Community (KIC,
Federal-recognized Tribe) to discuss this
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12536
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
project. The Alaska Harbor Seal
Commission is currently not
operational. Comments were not
received from the Alaska Sea Otter and
Steller Sea Lion Commission. PSSA met
with KIC and KIC submitted comments
for the Army Corps of Engineers permit
for this project. They did not express
concerns about subsistence hunting.
Construction activities at the project
site would be expected to cause only
short term, non-lethal disturbance of
marine mammals. Construction
activities are localized and temporary in
the previously developed Ward Cove,
mitigation measures will be
implemented to minimize disturbance
of marine mammals in the action area,
and, the project will not result in
significant changes to availability of
subsistence resources. Impacts on the
abundance or availability of either
species to subsistence hunters in the
region are thus not anticipated.
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 the
activity, and other means of effecting
the least practicable impact on the
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of
the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. 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 the 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, as well as
subsistence uses. 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.
The following mitigation measures are
proposed in the IHA:
• Schedule: Pile driving or removal
must occur during daylight hours. If
poor environmental conditions restrict
visibility (e.g., from excessive wind or
fog, high Beaufort state), pile
installation would be delayed;
• Pile Driving Delay/Shut-Down: For
use of in-water heavy machinery/vessel
(e.g., dredge), PSSA must implement a
minimum shutdown zone of 10 m
radius around the pile/vessel. For
vessels, PSSA must cease operations
and reduce vessel speed to the
minimum required to maintain steerage
and safe working conditions. In
addition, if an animal comes within the
shutdown zone (see Table 8) of a pile
being driven or removed, PSSA would
shut down. The shutdown zone would
only be reopened if they observe the
animal exiting the zone or when a
marine mammal has not been observed
within the shutdown zone for a 15minute period. If pile driving is
stopped, pile installation would not
commence if any marine mammals are
observed anywhere within the Level A
harassment zone. Pile driving activities
must only be conducted during daylight
hours when it is possible to visually
monitor for marine mammals. If a
species for which authorization has not
been granted, or if a species for which
authorization has been granted but the
authorized takes are met, PSSA must
delay or shut-down pile driving if the
marine mammal approaches or is
observed within the Level A and/or B
harassment zones. In the unanticipated
event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in
a manner prohibited by the IHA, such
as serious injury or mortality, the
protected species observer (PSO) on
watch must immediately call for the
cessation of the specified activities and
immediately report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, and NMFS Alaska Regional
Office.
TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN AND MONITORING ZONES FOR EACH ACTIVITY TYPE AND STOCK
Harbor seal
shutdown
distance
(m)
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
Pile size
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
30-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
36-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
48-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
36-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
48-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
Rock Anchoring:
36-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
48-inch piles .........................................................................................................................
All Other Activities:
Any activity ...........................................................................................................................
Other marine
mammal
shutdown
distance
(m)
Level B harbor
seal
monitoring
zone
(m)
10
15
15
3,645
3,645
3,645
3,645
3,645
3,645
200
200
200
3,645
3,645
3,645
3,645
3,645
3,645
40
40
3,645
3,645
3,645
3,645
10
N/A
N/A
Note: A Level A harbor seal monitoring zone is implemented for impact pile driving of 36 and 48-inch diameter piles out to the extent of the
Level A harassment zone (325 m). Level B monitoring zone (for the three species with authorized take) and other marine mammal shutdown distance of 3,645 m reflects the farthest distance before sound is inhibited by land.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
• Soft-start: For all impact pile
driving, a ‘‘soft start’’ technique must be
used at the beginning of each pile
installation day, or if pile driving has
ceased for more than 30 minutes, to
allow any marine mammal that may be
in the immediate area to leave before
hammering at full energy. The soft start
requires PSSA to provide an initial set
of three strikes from the impact hammer
at reduced energy, followed by a 30
second waiting period, then two
subsequent 3–strike sets. If any marine
mammal is sighted within the Level A
shutdown zone prior to pile-driving, or
during the soft start, PSSA must delay
pile-driving until the animal is
confirmed to have moved outside and is
on a path away from the Level A
harassment zone or if 15 minutes have
elapsed since the last sighting;
• Sediment control: All material that
comes out of the top of the pile during
pile driving (drill cutting discharge)
must be collected on a barge and
transported to a permitted upland
location for disposal. Pile driving,
temporary pile removal, and collection
of excavated material operations must
be surrounded by a 50-feet deep silt
curtain; and
• Other best management practices:
PSSA will drive all piles with a
vibratory hammer to the maximum
extent possible (i.e., until a desired
depth is achieved or to refusal) prior to
using an impact hammer. PSSA will
also use the minimum hammer energy
needed to safely install the piles.
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, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for subsistence uses.
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 ensuring that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density);
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring must be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after pile driving and removal 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 activities include
the time to install a single pile or series
of piles, as long as the time elapsed
between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than thirty
minutes.
Four PSO’s would be used to monitor
the project and their locations are
shown in Figure 12 of the monitoring
plan. A primary PSO must be placed
near the project site in Ward Cove
where pile driving would occur. The
primary purpose of this observer is to
monitor and implement the Level A
shutdown and monitoring zones. Three
additional PSOs must be positioned in
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12537
order to focus on monitoring the Level
B harassment and other species
shutdown zone. 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. The following
measures also apply to visual
monitoring:
(1) Monitoring must be conducted by
NMFS-approved 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. Qualified
observers are trained biologists, with the
following minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance; use of
binoculars may be necessary to correctly
identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological
science or related field (undergraduate
degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols (this
may include academic experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
(f) 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
(g) 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; and
(2) PSSA shall submit observer CVs
for approval by NMFS.
A draft marine mammal monitoring
report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
12538
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
pile driving and removal activities, or
60 days prior to a requested date of
issuance of any future IHAs for projects
at the same location, whichever comes
first. It will include an overall
description of work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings, and associated marine
mammal observation data sheets.
Specifically, the report must include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of
all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring
during each daily observation period,
including how many and what type of
piles were driven or removed and by
what method (i.e., impact or vibratory);
• Weather parameters and water
conditions during each monitoring
period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover,
visibility, sea state);
• The number of marine mammals
observed, by species, relative to the pile
location and if pile driving or removal
was occurring at time of sighting;
• Age and sex class, if possible, of all
marine mammals observed;
• PSO locations during marine
mammal monitoring;
• Distances and bearings of each
marine mammal observed to the pile
being driven or removed for each
sighting (if pile driving or removal was
occurring at time of sighting);
• Description of any marine mammal
behavior patterns during observation,
including direction of travel;
• Number of individuals of each
species (differentiated by month as
appropriate) detected within the
monitoring zone, and estimates of
number of marine mammals taken, by
species (a correction factor may be
applied to total take numbers, as
appropriate);
• Detailed information about any
implementation of any mitigation
triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a
description of specific actions that
ensued, and resulting behavior of the
animal, if any;
• Description of attempts to
distinguish between the number of
individual animals taken and the
number of incidences of take, such as
ability to track groups or individuals;
and
• An extrapolation of the estimated
takes by Level B harassment based on
the number of observed exposures
within the Level B harassment zone and
the percentage of the Level B
harassment zone that was not visible,
when applicable.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine
Mammals
In the event that personnel involved
in the construction activities discover
an injured or dead marine mammal,
PSSA shall report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources (OPR),
NMFS and to the regional stranding
coordinator as soon as feasible. The
report must include the following
information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the first discovery (and
updated location information if known
and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., 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
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Pile driving and drilling activities
have the potential to disturb or displace
marine mammals. Specifically, the
project 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 DTH drilling. Potential
takes could occur if individuals 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. The
potential for harassment is minimized
through the construction method and
the implementation of the planned
mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
The Level A harassment zones
identified in Table 7 are based upon an
animal exposed to impact pile driving
multiple piles per day. Considering
duration of impact driving each pile (up
to 3 minutes) and breaks between pile
installations (to reset equipment and
move pile into place), this means an
animal would have to remain within the
area estimated to be ensonified above
the Level A harassment threshold for
multiple hours. This is highly unlikely
given marine mammal movement
throughout the area. If an animal was
exposed to accumulated sound energy,
the resulting PTS would likely be small
(e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies
where pile driving energy is
concentrated.
Behavioral responses of marine
mammals to pile driving at the project
site, if any, are expected to be mild and
temporary. Marine mammals within the
Level B harassment zone may not show
any visual cues they are disturbed by
activities (as noted during modification
to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could
become alert, avoid the area, leave the
area, or display other mild responses
that are not observable such as changes
in vocalization patterns. Given the short
duration of noise-generating activities
per day and that pile driving and
removal would occur across 4–5
months, any harassment would be
temporary. There are no other areas or
times of known biological importance
for any of the affected species.
In addition, 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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
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.
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;
• Authorized Level A harassment
would be very small amounts and of
low degree;
• PSSA would implement mitigation
measures such as vibratory driving piles
to the maximum extent practicable, softstarts, silt curtains, removal of
potentially contaminated sediments,
and shut downs; and
• Monitoring reports from similar
work in Alaska have documented little
to no effect on individuals of the same
species impacted by the specified
activities.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
for specified activities other than
military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so,
in practice, where estimated numbers
are available, NMFS compares the
number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to
authorize is 3.8 percent of the Clarence
Strait stock’s best population estimate
for harbor seals. The Alaska stock of
Dall’s porpoise has no official NMFS
abundance estimate as the most recent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
estimate is greater than eight years old.
Nevertheless, the most recent estimate
was 83,400 animals and it is highly
unlikely this number has drastically
declined. Therefore, the 60 authorized
takes of this stock clearly represent
small numbers of this stock. The take for
harbor porpoise is 4.1 percent of the
stock. These are all likely conservative
estimates because they assume all takes
are of different individual animals
which is likely not the case. Some
individuals may return multiple times
in a day but PSOs would count them as
separate takes if they cannot be
individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must
find that the specified activity will not
have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’
on the subsistence uses of the affected
marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined
‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as an impact resulting from the
specified activity: (1) That is likely to
reduce the availability of the species to
a level insufficient for a harvest to meet
subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid
hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing
subsistence users; or (iii) Placing
physical barriers between the marine
mammals and the subsistence hunters;
and (2) That cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase
the availability of marine mammals to
allow subsistence needs to be met.
As discussed above in the subsistence
uses section, subsistence harvest of
harbor seals and other marine mammals
is rare in the area and local subsistence
users have not expressed concern about
this project. All project activities will
take place within the industrial area of
Tongass Narrows and Ward Cove
immediately adjacent to Ketchikan
where subsistence activities do not
generally occur. The project also will
not have an adverse impact on the
availability of marine mammals for
subsistence use at locations farther
away, where these construction
activities are not expected to take place.
Some minor, short-term harassment of
the harbor seals could occur, but any
effects on subsistence harvest activities
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12539
in the region will be minimal, and not
have an adverse impact.
Based on the effects and location of
the specified activity, and the mitigation
and monitoring measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that there will
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from PSSA’s planned
activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this
case with the Alaska Region Protected
Resources Division Office, whenever we
propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is proposed for authorization 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.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to PSSA to conduct the Ward
Cove Cruise Ship Dock project near
Ketchikan, Alaska for one year from the
date of issuance, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this Notice of Proposed
IHA for the proposed Ward Cove Cruise
Ship Dock project. We also request at
this time comment on the potential
renewal of this proposed IHA as
described in the paragraph below.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
help inform decisions on the request for
this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a one-year Renewal IHA following
notice to the public providing an
additional 15 days for public comments
when (1) up to another year of identical,
or nearly identical, activities as
described in the Specified Activities
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12540
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 2020 / Notices
section of this notice is planned or (2)
the activities as described in the
Specified Activities section of this
notice would not be completed by the
time the IHA expires and a Renewal
would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the
Dates and Duration section of this
notice, provided all of the following
conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to the needed
Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing
that Renewal IHA expiration date
cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA);
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted under the requested
Renewal IHA are identical to the
activities analyzed under the initial
IHA, are a subset of the activities, or
include changes so minor (e.g.,
reduction in pile size) that the changes
do not affect the previous analyses,
mitigation and monitoring
requirements, or take estimates (with
the exception of reducing the type or
amount of take); and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized;
and
• Upon review of the request for
Renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
will remain the same and appropriate,
and the findings in the initial IHA
remain valid.
Dated: February 26, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–04280 Filed 3–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
[RTID 0648–XT036]
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Shark Management Measures;
2020 Research Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Mar 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
ACTION:
Notice of public meeting.
On November 22, 2019,
NMFS published a notice inviting
qualified commercial shark permit
holders to submit applications to
participate in the 2020 shark research
fishery. The shark research fishery
allows for the collection of fisherydependent data for future stock
assessments and cooperative research
with commercial fishermen to meet the
shark research objectives of the Agency.
Every year, the permit terms and
permitted activities (e.g., number of
hooks and retention limits) specifically
authorized for selected participants in
the shark research fishery are designated
depending on the scientific and research
needs of the Agency, as well as the
number of NMFS-approved observers
available. In order to inform selected
participants of this year’s specific
permit requirements and ensure all
terms and conditions of the permit are
met, NMFS is holding a mandatory
meeting (via conference call) for
selected participants. The date and time
of that meeting is announced in this
notice.
DATES: A conference call will be held on
March 9, 2020.
ADDRESSES: A conference call will be
conducted. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for information on how to
access the conference call.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy
DuBeck at (301) 427–8503, or Delisse
Ortiz at (240) 681–9037.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Atlantic shark fisheries are managed
under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act). The 2006 Consolidated Atlantic
Highly Migratory species (HMS) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) is
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR
part 635.
The final rule for Amendment 2 to the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (73 FR
35778, June 24, 2008, corrected at 73 FR
40658, July 15, 2008) established,
among other things, a shark research
fishery to maintain time-series data for
stock assessments and to meet NMFS’
research objectives. The shark research
fishery gathers important scientific data
and allows selected commercial
fishermen the opportunity to earn more
revenue from selling the sharks caught,
including sandbar sharks. Only the
commercial shark fishermen selected to
participate in the shark research fishery
are authorized to land/harvest sandbar
sharks subject to the sandbar quota
available each year. The 2020 base
annual sandbar shark quota is 90.7 mt
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
dressed weight (dw). The selected shark
research fishery participants also may
fish using the research large coastal
shark (635.27(b)(1)(iii)(B)), small coastal
shark (635.27(b)(1)(i)(C) and
635.27(b)(1)(ii)(D)), and pelagic shark
quotas (635.27(b)(1)(iii)(D)) subject to
the retention limits at 635.24.
On November 22, 2019 (84 FR 64465),
NMFS published a notice inviting
qualified commercial shark directed and
incidental permit holders to submit an
application to participate in the 2020
shark research fishery. NMFS received
16 applications and selected 5
participants. In order to inform selected
participants of this year’s specific
permit requirements and to ensure all
terms and conditions of the permit are
met, per the requirements of
§ 635.32(f)(4), NMFS is holding a
mandatory permit holder meeting via
conference call.
Conference Call Date, Time, and DialIn Number
The conference call will be held on
March 9, 2020, from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.
(EST). Participants and interested
parties should call 888–469–1244 and
use the passcode 5585842. This call is
mandatory for selected participants.
Selected participants who do not attend
will not be allowed to participate in the
shark research fishery. While the
conference call is mandatory for
selected participants, other interested
parties may call in and listen to the
discussion. Selected participants are
encouraged to invite their captain, crew,
or anyone else who may assist them in
meeting the terms and conditions of the
shark research fishery permit.
Dated: February 27, 2020.
Karyl K. Brewster-Geisz,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–04324 Filed 3–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards;
Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services
and Results for Children With
Disabilities—Model Demonstration
Projects To Develop Coaching
Systems
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Education
(Department) is issuing a notice inviting
applications for new awards for fiscal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12523-12540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04280]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XR099]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Project,
Juneau, 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 Power Systems & Supplies of
Alaska (PSSA) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to
Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Project near Ketchikan, 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 April 2,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the
application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for 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 the 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 the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On December 30, 2019, NMFS received a request from PSSA for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Project
near Ketchikan, Alaska. The application
[[Page 12524]]
was deemed adequate and complete on February 5, 2020. PSSA's request is
for take of harbor seals by Level B harassment and Level A harassment.
Neither PSSA nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result
from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The project consists of the construction of a cruise ship dock for
two cruise ships in Ward Cove, approximately eight kilometers (5 miles)
north of downtown Ketchikan, Alaska. PSSA would install a pile
supported 500-foot by 70-foot floating pontoon dock, mooring
structures, and shore-access transfer span and trestle. The project
includes the following in-water components: Driving one hundred and two
30-48 inch diameter steel pipe piles to support the structures and
removal of 48 of these piles (all 30-inch diameter) that are being used
solely as templates to guide installation of larger permanent piles. It
is expected to take no more than 105 days of in-water work. Pile
driving would be by vibratory pile driving until resistance is too
great and driving would switch to an impact hammer. Removal of
temporary piles would use vibratory methods only. Forty larger 36- and
48-inch piles would also be rock anchored into place using a down-the-
hole (DTH) drill.
The pile driving/removal or rock anchoring can result in take of
marine mammals from sound in the water which results in behavioral
harassment or auditory injury. The footprint of the project is
approximately 1.5 square miles around the project site.
Dates and Duration
The work for which take will be authorized began in February 2020.
In the time period before we authorize take the applicant has agreed
with us to shut down pile driving anytime marine mammals are seen in
the Level B Harassment Zone of the project area (see below). PSSA
believes they are able to avoid unauthorized take through the use of
mitigation and monitoring measures agreed described in their
application. Because we do not know exactly when an IHA will be issued,
nor exactly how much of the project activities will be complete when an
authorization is in place, we may lower the take authorization at final
issuance of this IHA. Under an existing permit issued by the Army Corps
of Engineers and an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Letter of
Concurrence issued by NMFS, impact pile driving will cease by June 30
to protect endangered salmon and vibratory pile driving and rock
anchoring will cease by July 31 to protect other ESA listed species.
PSSA has proposed the daily construction window for pile removal and
driving would begin no sooner than 30 minutes after sunrise and would
end 30 minutes prior to sunset to allow for marine mammal monitoring.
Specific Geographic Region
The project site is located in Ward Cove north of Ketchikan, Alaska
(Figure 1). Ward Cove is a small estuary with an area of approximately
1 square kilometer (0.4 square mile) located off the western coast of
Revillagigedo Island and on the North Shore of Tongass Narrows. The
cove is approximately 1.6 kilometers long (1 mile) and 0.8 kilometers
(0.5 mile) wide with depths to 60 meters (200 feet) (EPA 2015, NOAA
2016). The cove has experienced significant industrialization as it was
the former site of a pulp mill, sawmill, and fish processing plant.
Effluent and materials from these former industries polluted the cove.
The bottom substrate is organic-rich sediments areas overlaid with
either sandy material that has been thinly placed (``capped;'' 15-23
inches thick) or sandy material that has been mounded (approximately
1.45 meters thick) as a remediation requirement for the earlier
pollution. Deep water areas have deep organic sediments with no sandy
overlay. Some areas have a high density of old sunken logs from the
sawmill operations (Exponent 2000). Silt curtains will be used around
pile driving operations and sediments captured as drill cutting
discharge will be removed (see below) and will trap most suspended
sediments and prevent dispersal into the wider environment.
Sound from project activities is expected to also move into Tongass
Narrows. Tongass Narrows is a U-shaped glacier-carved fjord that varies
between 300 meters (0.2 mile) to 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) wide and 15
meters (49 feet) to 55 meters (180 feet) deep (ADEC 2017, NOAA 2016).
Tongass Narrows is known for strong tidal currents and unusually large
tidal ranges of 8 meters (feet) or more (Pentec 2001). The Narrows are
characterized by steep bedrock or coarse gravel-cobble-boulder
shoreline.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The proposed project includes the installation of steel piles to
support a new 500-foot by 70-foot floating pontoon dock, mooring
structures, and shore-access transfer span and trestle. The project
will:
Install 48 temporary 30-inch diameter steel piles as
templates to guide proper installation of permanent piles (these
temporary piles would be removed prior to project completion);
Install 14 permanent 30-inch diameter piles, 20 permanent
36-inch diameter piles, and 20 permanent 48-inch diameter piles to
support a new 500-foot x 70-foot floating pontoon dock, mooring
structures, and shore-access transfer span and trestle for a total of
54 piles;
Install dock components such as bull rail, floating
fenders, mooring cleats, vehicle driveway, curb, passenger walkway,
hand rail, and mast lights.
The temporary, 30-inch diameter piles serving as a template would
be installed and removed using a vibratory hammer. The 14 permanent 30-
inch trestle piles will be installed through sand and gravel with a
vibratory hammer and impact hammer. The 54 permanent 36-inch and 48-
inch diameter piles will be driven through sand and gravel with a
vibratory hammer and then impact driven into bedrock. After being
impacted, these piles will be rock anchored. To rock anchor the pile, a
DTH hammer with a 33-inch-diameter bit will be used to drill a shaft
into the bedrock. The drill bit will be removed, and the shaft will be
filled with vertical reinforcement (a rebar cage) in concrete to secure
the pile. The depth of the shaft is to be determined by a geotechnical
engineer prior to construction. During anchor drilling the pile will
not be touched by the drill, and no steel-on-steel hammer noise will be
generated. As much as possible, the hammer will be operated at a
reduced energy setting. The contractor will use high-density
polyethylene or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene softening
material (pile caps) on all templates to eliminate steel on steel noise
generation.
In-water construction of the cruise ship dock will begin with
installation of the trestle. Once the trestle is constructed, dolphins
will be constructed. Trestle and dolphin construction will follow this
sequence:
(1) Vibrate 32 temporary 30-inch-diameter piles for the trestle,
and 16 temporary 30-inch diameter piles for the dolphins, a minimum of
10 feet into overburden to create a template to guide installation of
permanent piles;
(2) Weld a template frame around the temporary piles;
(3) Within the template frame, vibrate and impact 14 permanent 30-
inch diameter piles into place for the trestle; or vibrate, impact, and
rock anchor 20 permanent 36-inch and 20 48-inch
[[Page 12525]]
diameter piles into place for the dolphins;
(4) Remove the template frame and temporary piles; and
(5) Perform this sequence at the seven trestle bent locations,
working farther from the shoreline each sequence. Once the trestle is
completed perform this sequence at the eight dolphin locations.
After all piles are installed, construction will proceed with
installation of the floating dock, transfer span, trestle, mechanical
systems, and other above-water components like the vehicle driveway,
passenger walkway, and mast lights. Two barges and two small boats will
be used to facilitate the construction, transport and stage materials,
and support protected species monitoring. Additional standard barges,
tug boats, or clamshell equipment will be used to place or remove
material (including submerged logs) and position piles on the substrate
via a crane.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MR20.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the project area near Ketchikan, Alaska 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 (2019). PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent
[[Page 12526]]
the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock
abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that
stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S.
waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S.
Alaska SARs (e.g., Muto et al. 2019). All values presented in Table 1
are the most recent available at the time of publication and are
available in the 2019 draft SARs (Muto et al., 2019).
Table 1--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance Nbest,
ESA/MMPA status; (CV, Nmin, most recent Annual M/
Common name Scientific name MMPA stock Strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) \2\ PBR SI \3\
\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.. E, D,Y 10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 83 25
2006).
Minke whale......................... Balaenoptera Alaska................. -, N N.A................... N.A. N.A.
acutorostrata.
Fin whale........................... Balaenoptera physalus.. Northeast Pacific...... E, D, Y N.A................... 5.1 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Alaska Resident........ -, N 2,347 (N.A.; 2,347; 24 1
2012).
West Coast Transient... -, N 243 (N.A, 243, 2009).. 2.4 0
Northern Resident...... -, N 302 (N.A.; 302, 2018). 2.2 0.2
Pacific white-sided dolphin..... Lagenorhynchus North Pacific.......... -,-; N 26,880 (N.A.; N.A.; N.A. 0
obliquidens. 1990).
Family Phocoenidae:
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Southeast Alaska....... -, Y 975 (0.10; 896; 2012). 8.95 34
Dall's porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... Alaska................. -, N N.A................... N.A. 38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
Steller sea lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern U.S............ -,-, N 43,201 (N.A.; 43,201; 2,592 113
2017).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina Clarence Strait........ -, N 27,659 (N.A.; 24,854; 746 40
richardii. 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 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's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
All 10 species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 1. However, the temporal and/or spatial
occurrence and mitigation measures implemented for seven species (all
in Table 1 except harbor seals, Dall's porpoise, and harbor porpoise)
is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed
further beyond the explanation provided here. These seven species are
not expected to have take occur because the applicant will shut down
pile driving and rock anchoring activities if these species are
observed within the Level B harassment zone defined below.
Additionally, minke whale, fin whale, gray whale, Pacific white-sided
dolphins and killer whales are rare in the area. The applicant only
requested take of harbor seals (see above), but we believe the cryptic
nature, small size, and dive duration of Dall's porpoise and harbor
porpoise make it possible that these two species could also be taken.
Therefore we propose to authorize take for these species (see below)
and PSSA concurred.
In addition, the northern sea otter may be found in the project
vicinity. However, that species is managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and is not considered further in this document.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) inhabit coastal and estuarine waters
off Alaska. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting
glacial ice. They are opportunistic feeders and often adjust their
distribution to take advantage of locally and seasonally abundant prey
(Womble et al., 2009, Allen and Angliss, 2015).
Harbor seals occurring in the project area belong to the Clarence
Strait stock. Distribution of the Clarence Strait stock ranges from the
east coast of Prince of Wales Island from Cape Chacon north through
Clarence Strait to Point Baker and along the east coast of Mitkof and
Kupreanof Islands north to Bay Point, including Ernest Sound, Behm
Canal, and Pearse Canal (Muto et al. 2019). In the project area, they
tend to be more abundant during spring, summer and fall months when
salmon are present in Ward Creek. Anecdotal evidence indicates that
harbor seals typically occur in groups of 1-3 animals in Ward Cove
(Spokely 2019). They were not observed in Tongass Narrows during a
combined 63.5 hours of marine mammal monitoring that took place in 2001
and 2016 (OSSA 2001, Turnagain 2016). There are no known harbor seal
haulouts within the project area.
[[Page 12527]]
According to the list of harbor seal haulout locations, the closest
listed haulouts are located off the tip of Gravina Island,
approximately eight kilometers (five miles) northwest of Ward Cove
(AFSC 2018).
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli) are found throughout the
North Pacific, from southern Japan to southern California north to the
Bering Sea. All Dall's porpoises in Alaska are members of the Alaska
stock. This species can be found in offshore, inshore, and nearshore
habitat.
Jefferson et al. (2019) presents historical survey data showing few
sightings in the Ketchikan area. The mean group size in Southeast
Alaska is estimated at approximately three individuals (Dahlheim et al.
2009, Jefferson et al. 2019), although Freitag (2017, as cited in 83 FR
37473) suggested group sizes near Ketchikan range from 10 to 15
individuals. Anecdotal reports suggest that Dall's porpoises are found
northwest of Ketchikan near the Guard Islands, where waters are deeper,
as well as in deeper waters to the southeast of Tongass Narrows. This
species has a tendency to bow-ride with vessels and may occur in the
action area incidentally a few times per year.
Harbor Porpoise
In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena) ranges from Point Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and down
the west coast of North America to Point Conception, California. The
Southeast Alaska stock ranges from Cape Suckling to the Canadian border
(Muto et al. 2019). Harbor porpoises frequent primarily coastal waters
in Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009) and occur most frequently in
waters less than 100 meters (328 feet) deep (Dahlheim et al. 2015).
They are not attracted to areas with elevated levels of vessel activity
and noise such as Tongass Narrows.
Studies of harbor porpoises reported no evidence of seasonal
changes in distribution for the inland waters of Southeast Alaska
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). Their small overall size, lack of a visible
blow, low dorsal fins and overall low profile, and short surfacing time
make them difficult to spot (Dahlheim et al. 2015). Ketchikan area
densities are expected to be low. This is supported by anecdotal
estimates. Anecdotal reports (see IHA Application) specific to Tongass
Narrows indicate that harbor porpoises are rarely observed in the
action area. Harbor porpoises are expected to be present in the action
area only a few times per year.
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
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 2.
Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Harbor seals are in the phocid group and Dall's and harbor porpoises
are classified as high-frequency cetaceans.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive
success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
[[Page 12528]]
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, 1995). 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 rock
anchoring. 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.,
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
Sound pressure Levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are
generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile
driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is
slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound
energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and
Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).
Rock anchoring would be conducted using a DTH drill inserted
through the hollow steel piles. A DTH 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 DTH
drilling method are considered continuous as the noise from the
drilling component is expected to be dominant. In addition, the method
in this case likely increases sound attenuation because the noise is
primarily contained within the steel pile and below ground as opposed
to impact hammer driving methods which occur at the top of the pile and
introduce sound into the water column to a greater degree. See our
detailed discussion of this sound source in the notice of issuance of
an IHA for Ferry Berth Improvements in Tongass Narrows, Alaska https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-01-07/pdf/2020-00038.pdf.
The likely or possible impacts of PSSA'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 rock anchoring is the
primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from PSSA'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).
Generally, 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 recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the
[[Page 12529]]
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.,
2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source (e.g.,
spatial, temporal, and spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold
shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960;
Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson and
Hu, 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, 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 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). The potential for TTS from impact pile driving
exists. After exposure to playbacks of impact pile driving sounds (rate
2760 strikes/hour) in captivity, mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15
minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 minute exposure; recovery occurred
within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al., 2016). 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 DTH 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 and C of Southall et
al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
[[Page 12530]]
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al.,
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
In 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (ADOT&PF) documented observations of marine mammals during
construction activities (i.e., pile driving and DTH drilling) at the
Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015). 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 PSSA's 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 DTH
drilling projects in Alaska have observed similar behaviors (for
example, the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-faa-biorka-island-dock-replacement-project-sitka-ak).
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. The
Ketchikan area contains active commercial shipping, cruise ship and
ferry operations, as well as numerous recreational and other commercial
vessels; therefore, background sound levels in the area 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 DTH 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. Moreover, there are no known haulout areas near the
project. 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
PSSA's construction activities in Ward Cove 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 Ward Cove
and adjacent Tongass Narrows where both fishes 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.
In-water pile driving, pile removal, and drilling activities would
also cause short-term effects on water quality due to increased
turbidity. The use of silt curtains and the removal of sediments
captured as drill cutting discharge (see below) will trap most
suspended sediments and prevent dispersal into the wider environment.
Local strong currents are anticipated to disburse any additional
suspended sediments produced by project activities at moderate to rapid
rates depending on tidal stage. PSSA would employ other standard
construction best management practices (see section 11 in application),
[[Page 12531]]
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 (e.g., most of the impacted area is
limited to Ward Cove) and does not include any Biologically Important
Areas or other habitat of known importance. Pile installation/removal
and drilling may temporarily increase turbidity resulting from
suspended sediments. Any increases would be temporary, localized, and
minimal. PSSA must comply with state water quality standards during
these operations by using silt curtains and removing all sediments
captured as drill cutting discharge to upland disposal sites. In
general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to
about a 25-foot radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). 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.
The duration of the construction activities is relatively short.
The construction window is for a maximum of 4-5 months. 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 and small size of Ward Cove.
In-water Construction Effects on Potential Prey (Fish)--
Construction activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile
driving and DTH 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. There are times of known
seasonal marine mammal foraging in Tongass Narrows around fish
processing/hatchery infrastructure or when fish are congregating, but
the impacted areas of Tongass Narrows are a small portion of the total
foraging habitat available in the region. In general, impacts to marine
mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the
short timeframe of the project and the small project footprint.
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 Tongass Narrows 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 acoustic source (i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving or DTH
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 for pinnipeds
because predicted auditory injury zones are larger and harbor seals are
the only animals routinely seen in Ward Cove. The proposed mitigation
and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the
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
[[Page 12532]]
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). Due to the lack of marine marine mammal
density, NMFS relied on local occurrence data and group size to
estimate take. Below, we describe the factors considered here in more
detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa) (root mean square
(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and
above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g.,
impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
PSSA's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory
pile-driving, DTH 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) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). PSSA's 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 acoustic thresholds \*\ (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW): (Underwater).... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW): (Underwater)... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and DTH drilling).
Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and
produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile,
allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth. An impact
hammer would then generally be used to place the pile at its intended
depth through rock or harder substrates. The actual durations of each
installation method vary depending on the type and size of the pile. An
impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston, producing a
series of independent strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering
typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile
installation.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level
B harassment sound thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in
this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data
[[Page 12533]]
from other locations to develop source levels (see Table 4). Note that
piles of differing sizes have different sound source levels (SSLs).
Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF sound source verification (SSV)
studies at Ketchikan were used to estimate sound source levels for
vibratory and impact driving of 30-inch steel pipe piles and Kodiak for
drilling (Denes et al. 2016). Data from Ketchikan was used because of
its proximity to this proposed project in Tongass Narrows and Kodiak
drilling data was used as a proxy here because of its relative
proximity. Details are described below.
The source level for rock anchoring was derived from the above
mentioned ADOT&PF SSV study at Kodiak, Alaska. The reported median
source value for drilling was determined to be 166.2 dB rms for all
pile types (Denes et al. 2016, Table 72). See our detailed discussion
of this sound source in the notice of issuance of an IHA for Ferry
Berth Improvements in Tongass Narrows, Alaska https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-01-07/pdf/2020-00038.pdf
Table 4--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile Installation, Drilling, and Vibratory Pile Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and pile type Sound source level at 10 meters Literature source
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Vibratory Hammer..................... dB rms
30-inch steel piles.................. 161.9 Denes et al. 2016, Table 72.
36-inch steel piles.................. 168.2 Austin et al. 2016, Table 16.
48-inch steel piles.................. 168.2 Austin et al. 2016, Table 16.
Drilling Rock Anchors................ dB rms
All pile diameters............... 166.2 Denes et al. 2016, Table 72.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Hammer dB peak dB SS SEL
All pile diameters................... 212...................... 186.7.................... Austin et al. 2016, Tables 9, 16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It is assumed that noise levels during pile installation and removal are similar. Use of an impact hammer will be limited to 5-10 minutes per
pile, if necessary. It is assumed that drilling produces the same SSL for both pile diameters. SS SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB peak =
peak sound level; rms = root mean square.
Level B Harassment Zones
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
The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is
the, practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected
propagation environment that would lie between spherical and
cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate
assumption for PSSA's proposed activity.
Using the practical spreading model, PSSA determined underwater
noise would fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 120 dB rms
for marine mammals at a maximum radial distance of 16,343 m for
vibratory pile driving the 36 and 48-inch diameter piles. This distance
determines the maximum Level B harassment zone for the project. Other
activities, including rock anchoring and impact pile driving, have
smaller Level B harassment zones. All Level B harassment isopleths are
reported in Table 5 below and visualized in Figure 6 and Table 5 in the
IHA application. It should be noted that based on the geography of Ward
Cove, Tongass Narrows and the surrounding islands, sound will not reach
the full distance of the Level B harassment isopleth. Generally, due to
interaction with land, only a thin slice of the possible area is
ensonified and the maximum distance before reaching land barriers is
3,645 m.
Table 5--Calculated Distances to Level B Harassment Isopleths During
Pile Installation and Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Pile size isopleth
(m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
30-inch piles.............................................. 6,213
36-inch piles.............................................. 16,343
48-inch piles.............................................. 16,343
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles.............................................. 3,744
36-inch piles.............................................. 3,744
48-inch piles.............................................. 3,744
Rock Anchoring:
136-inch piles............................................. 12,023
148-inch piles............................................. 12,023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment Zones
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 take by Level A harassment. 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
impact/vibratory pile driving or drilling, NMFS User Spreadsheet
predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur
PTS.
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet (Table 6), and the resulting
isopleths are reported below (Table 7). Level A
[[Page 12534]]
harassment thresholds for impulsive sound sources (impact pile driving)
are defined for both SELcum and Peak SPL, with the threshold that
results in the largest modeled isopleth for each marine mammal hearing
group used to establish the Level A harassment isopleth. In this
project, Level A harassment isopleths based on SELcum were always
larger than those based on Peak SPL.
Table 6--Parameters of Pile Driving and Drilling Activity Used in User Spreadsheet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory pile Vibratory pile
driver driver Impact pile driver Impact pile driver
Equipment type (installation/ (installation of (30-inch steel (36 and 48-inch Rock anchor (36- Rock anchor (48-
removal of 30-inch 36 and 48-inch piles) steel piles) inch steel piles) inch steel piles)
steel piles) steel piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spreadsheet Tab Used............ Non-impulsive, Non-impulsive, Impulsive, Non- Impulsive, Non- Non-impulsive, Non-impulsive,
continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous. continuous
Source Level.................... 161.9 SPL......... 168.2 SPL......... 186.7 SS SEL*..... 186.7 SS SEL*..... 166.2 SPL......... 166.2 SPL
Weighting Factor Adjustment 2.5............... 2.5............... 2................. 2................. 2.5............... 2.5
(kHz).
(a)Activity duration (time) (a) 0:40.......... (a) 1:00.......... .................. .................. (a) 8:00.......... (a) 5:00
within 24 hours.
(b) Number of strikes per .................. .................. (b) 40............ (b) 100........... (240 mins *2)..... (300 mins *1)
pile (impact).
(c) Number of piles per day. (c) 4............. (c) 2............. (c) 2............. (c) 2............. (c) 2............. (c) 1
Propagation (xLogR)............. 15................ 15................ 15................ 15................ 15................ 15
Distance of source level 10................ 10................ 10................ 10................ 10................ 10
measurement (meters).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data for all equipment types were for Propagation (xLogR) = 15 and distance of source level measurements was 10 meters.
* Largest isopleth distances for impact pile driving were all found when using SS SEL (see application for details) and SEL is the preferred metric.
The above input scenarios lead to a PTS isopleth distance (Level A
threshold) of 3.6 to 322.5 meters, depending on the marine mammal group
and scenario (Table 7).
Table 7--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths (m) During Pile Installation and Removal for each
Hearing Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High
Pile size Low frequency Mid frequency frequency Phocid Otariid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
30-inch piles............... 6 0.5 8.8 3.6 0.3
36-inch piles............... 20.6 1.8 30.5 12.5 0.9
48-inch piles............... 20.6 1.8 30.5 12.5 0.9
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles............... 327.2 11.6 389.7 175.1 12.7
36-inch piles............... 602.7 21.4 717.9 322.5 23.5
48-inch piles............... 602.7 21.4 717.9 322.5 23.5
Rock Anchoring:
36-inch piles............... 60.7 5.4 89.7 36.9 2.6
48-inch piles............... 44.4 3.9 65.6 27 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: a 10-meter shutdown zone will be implemented for all species and activity types to prevent direct injury
of marine mammals.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of harbor seals that will inform the take
calculations. There is no density data for any of the species near Ward
Cove.
Harbor Seal
As discussed above anecdotal evidence suggests maximum group size
is up to three individuals in Ward Cove at one time. They are known to
occur year-round in the area with little seasonal variation in
abundance (Freitag (2017) as cited in 83 FR 37473) and local experts
estimate that there are about 1 to 3 harbor seals in Tongass Narrows
every day. To be conservative we will assume a group size of five
individuals in the project area each day.
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises are expected to only occur in the action area a
few times per year. Their relative rarity is supported by Jefferson et
al.'s (2019) presentation of historical survey data showing very few
sightings in the Ketchikan area and conclusion that Dall's porpoise
generally are rare in narrow waterways, like the Tongass Narrows. This
species is non-migratory; therefore, our occurrence estimates are not
dependent on season. We anticipate that one large Dall's porpoise pod
(15 individuals) (Freitag (2017), as cited in 83 FR37473) may be
present in the project area once each month during construction.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, our occurrence
estimates are not dependent on season. Freitag ((2017) as cited in 83
FR 37473) observed harbor porpoises in Tongass Narrows zero to one time
per month. Harbor porpoises observed in the project vicinity typically
occur in groups of one to five animals with an estimated maximum group
size of eight animals (83 FR 37473, August 1, 2018, Solstice 2018). For
our impact analysis, we are considering a group to consist of five
[[Page 12535]]
animals, a value on the high end of the typical group size. Based on
Freitag (2017), and supported by the reports of knowledgeable locals as
described in the application for IHA for Tongass Narrows (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-alaska-department-transportation-ferry-berth-improvements), it is estimated
that a maximum two groups (10) of harbor porpoises would enter Tongass
Narrows and potentially be exposed to project related noise each of the
four months of the project.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. As noted above, the
applicant only requested take of harbor seals, but we believe the
cryptic nature, small size, and dive duration of Dall's porpoise and
harbor porpoise make it possible that these two species could also be
taken by popping up inside the Level B harassment zone before shutdown
can occur (see below). We describe how we estimated their take below.
It is important to note that PSSA proposes to implement a shutdown
of pile driving activity if any marine mammal other than harbor seals
is observed within the Level B harassment zone (see Proposed
Mitigation). Therefore, the proposed take authorization is intended to
provide insurance against the event that marine mammals occur within
Level B harassment zones that cannot be fully observed by monitors. As
a result of this proposed mitigation, we do not believe that Level A
harassment is a likely outcome for these two species. While the
calculated Level A harassment zone is as large as 720 m for impact
driving of 48-in steel piles (ranging from 390 m for other impact
driving scenarios), this requires that an animal be present at that
range for the full assumed duration of pile strikes (expected to
require multiple hours). Given the PSSA's commitment to shut down upon
observation of other marine mammals, and the rarity of these animals
inside Ward Cove where the Level A harassment zones will be, we do not
expect that any of these other species would be present within a Level
A harassment zone for sufficient duration to actually experience PTS.
Harbor Seals
The take calculation was estimated based on the conservative group
size from above (5) multiplied by the number of expected groups per day
multiplied by the number of days of pile driving. Based on the
anecdotal observations, it is conservatively estimated that 2 groups of
5 harbor seals may occur within the Level B harassment zone every day
that pile driving may occur. Thus we estimate 5 animals in a group x 2
groups per day x 105 days = 1,050 times animals would occur within the
Level B harassment zone. The Level B harassment zones areas for trestle
construction and mooring dolphin construction differ in size because
more sound is expected to leak out of the cove into Tongass Narrows
when construction on the dolphins is toward the middle of the cove (see
Figure 6 of application). Nevertheless, it is expected that most of the
take will occur within Ward Cove (not Tongass Narrows) where the action
areas for trestle and dolphin construction overlap and are identical in
size, so take is not reduced despite the smaller area of trestle
effects.
The Level A harassment zone for harbor seals for impact pile
driving of 30-inch piles is 175 meters, and for impact driving of 36
and 48-inch piles, the zone is 325 meters. For other pile driving
activities the zones are much smaller. Impact pile driving would be
shut down before a harbor seal enters within 200 meters during impact
pile driving of all piles; however, take by Level A harassment of
harbor seals is requested outside the 200m shutdown zone for larger
piles with zones exceeding 200m. Impact driving would occur for no more
than 10 minutes per day on 20 days of construction. As above we use
group size of 5 individuals and expect 1 group per day to be exposed in
the Level A harassment zone. Although mere ``exposure'' within the
Level A harassment zone is not indicative of an animal incurring
auditory injury due to the fact that injury results from accumulation
of energy over an assumed duration of exposure, we conservatively
propose to authorize 100 Level A harassment takes of harbor seal (5
animals in a group x 1 groups per day x 20 days = 100 animals). Because
these animals exposed in the Level A harassment zone duplicate those
exposed in the Level B zone, the authorized Level B harassment take is
the number of Level B harassment zone exposures minus the Level A take
or 950 animals (1050-100).
Dall's Porpoise
As discussed above we assume a single group of 15 individuals in
the project area each month. The take calculation was estimated based
on the conservative group size from above (15) multiplied by the number
of expected groups per month (1) multiplied by the number of months of
pile driving for the project (4). Thus we estimate Level B harassment
take of 60 individuals (15 x 1 x 4).
Harbor Porpoise
As discussed above we assume a conservative group size of 5
individuals occurring no more than twice in the project area each
month. The take calculation was estimated based on the group size from
above (5) multiplied by the number of expected groups per month (2)
multiplied by the number of months of pile driving for the project (4).
Thus we estimate Level B harassment take of 40 individuals (5 x 2 x 4).
Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals
The availability of the affected marine mammal stocks or species
for subsistence uses may be impacted by this activity. The subsistence
uses that may be affected and the potential impacts of the activity on
those uses are described below. The information from this section is
analyzed to determine whether the necessary findings may be made in the
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination section.
Subsistence harvest of harbor seals by Alaska Natives is not
prohibited by the MMPA. Since surveys of harbor seal subsistence
harvest in Alaska began in 1992, there have been declines in the number
of households hunting and harvesting seals in Southeast Alaska (Wolf et
al. 2013). Subsistence harvest data for the Clarence Strait stock
indicates an average annual harvest in the years 2004-2008 of 164
harbor seals (80 near Ketchikan) and an average annual harvest in the
years 2011-2012 of 40 harbor seals (summarized in Muto et al. 2016a
from Wolf et al. 2013). In 2008, two Steller sea lions were harvested
by Ketchikan-based subsistence hunters, but this is the only record of
sea lion harvest by residents of Ketchikan. In 2012, the community of
Ketchikan had an estimated subsistence take of 22 harbor seals (Wolf et
al. 2013). This is the most recent data for Ketchikan. The ADF&G has
not recorded harvest of cetaceans in the area (ADF&G 2018). Hunting
usually occurs in October and November (ADF&G 2009), but there are also
records of relatively high harvest in May (Wolfe et al. 2013).
In June 2019, attempts were made by PSSA to contact the Alaska
Harbor Seal Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion
Commission, and the Ketchikan Indian Community (KIC, Federal-recognized
Tribe) to discuss this
[[Page 12536]]
project. The Alaska Harbor Seal Commission is currently not
operational. Comments were not received from the Alaska Sea Otter and
Steller Sea Lion Commission. PSSA met with KIC and KIC submitted
comments for the Army Corps of Engineers permit for this project. They
did not express concerns about subsistence hunting.
Construction activities at the project site would be expected to
cause only short term, non-lethal disturbance of marine mammals.
Construction activities are localized and temporary in the previously
developed Ward Cove, mitigation measures will be implemented to
minimize disturbance of marine mammals in the action area, and, the
project will not result in significant changes to availability of
subsistence resources. Impacts on the abundance or availability of
either species to subsistence hunters in the region are thus not
anticipated.
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 the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. 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 the 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, as
well as subsistence uses. 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.
The following mitigation measures are proposed in the IHA:
Schedule: Pile driving or removal must occur during
daylight hours. If poor environmental conditions restrict visibility
(e.g., from excessive wind or fog, high Beaufort state), pile
installation would be delayed;
Pile Driving Delay/Shut-Down: For use of in-water heavy
machinery/vessel (e.g., dredge), PSSA must implement a minimum shutdown
zone of 10 m radius around the pile/vessel. For vessels, PSSA must
cease operations and reduce vessel speed to the minimum required to
maintain steerage and safe working conditions. In addition, if an
animal comes within the shutdown zone (see Table 8) of a pile being
driven or removed, PSSA would shut down. The shutdown zone would only
be reopened if they observe the animal exiting the zone or when a
marine mammal has not been observed within the shutdown zone for a 15-
minute period. If pile driving is stopped, pile installation would not
commence if any marine mammals are observed anywhere within the Level A
harassment zone. Pile driving activities must only be conducted during
daylight hours when it is possible to visually monitor for marine
mammals. If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or
if a species for which authorization has been granted but the
authorized takes are met, PSSA must delay or shut-down pile driving if
the marine mammal approaches or is observed within the Level A and/or B
harassment zones. In the unanticipated event that the specified
activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA, such as serious injury or mortality, the
protected species observer (PSO) on watch must immediately call for the
cessation of the specified activities and immediately report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and NMFS Alaska Regional Office.
Table 8--Shutdown and Monitoring Zones for Each Activity Type and Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other marine Level B harbor
Harbor seal mammal seal
Pile size shutdown shutdown monitoring
distance (m) distance (m) zone (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
30-inch piles............................................... 10 3,645 3,645
36-inch piles............................................... 15 3,645 3,645
48-inch piles............................................... 15 3,645 3,645
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles............................................... 200 3,645 3,645
36-inch piles............................................... 200 3,645 3,645
48-inch piles............................................... 200 3,645 3,645
Rock Anchoring:
36-inch piles............................................... 40 3,645 3,645
48-inch piles............................................... 40 3,645 3,645
All Other Activities:
Any activity................................................ 10 N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: A Level A harbor seal monitoring zone is implemented for impact pile driving of 36 and 48-inch diameter
piles out to the extent of the Level A harassment zone (325 m). Level B monitoring zone (for the three species
with authorized take) and other marine mammal shutdown distance of 3,645 m reflects the farthest distance
before sound is inhibited by land.
[[Page 12537]]
Soft-start: For all impact pile driving, a ``soft start''
technique must be used at the beginning of each pile installation day,
or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes, to allow any
marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before
hammering at full energy. The soft start requires PSSA to provide an
initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy,
followed by a 30 second waiting period, then two subsequent 3-strike
sets. If any marine mammal is sighted within the Level A shutdown zone
prior to pile-driving, or during the soft start, PSSA must delay pile-
driving until the animal is confirmed to have moved outside and is on a
path away from the Level A harassment zone or if 15 minutes have
elapsed since the last sighting;
Sediment control: All material that comes out of the top
of the pile during pile driving (drill cutting discharge) must be
collected on a barge and transported to a permitted upland location for
disposal. Pile driving, temporary pile removal, and collection of
excavated material operations must be surrounded by a 50-feet deep silt
curtain; and
Other best management practices: PSSA will drive all piles
with a vibratory hammer to the maximum extent possible (i.e., until a
desired depth is achieved or to refusal) prior to using an impact
hammer. PSSA will also use the minimum hammer energy needed to safely
install the piles.
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, and on the availability of such species or stock for
subsistence uses.
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 ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring must be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving and removal 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 activities include the time to install a single pile or
series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile
driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
Four PSO's would be used to monitor the project and their locations
are shown in Figure 12 of the monitoring plan. A primary PSO must be
placed near the project site in Ward Cove where pile driving would
occur. The primary purpose of this observer is to monitor and implement
the Level A shutdown and monitoring zones. Three additional PSOs must
be positioned in order to focus on monitoring the Level B harassment
and other species shutdown zone. 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. The following measures also apply to
visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring must be conducted by NMFS-approved 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.
Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum
qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological science or related field
(undergraduate degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine
mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
(f) 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
(g) 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; and
(2) PSSA shall submit observer CVs for approval by NMFS.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
[[Page 12538]]
pile driving and removal activities, or 60 days prior to a requested
date of issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location,
whichever comes first. It will include an overall description of work
completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and
associated marine mammal observation data sheets. Specifically, the
report must include:
Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including how many and what type of piles were
driven or removed and by what method (i.e., impact or vibratory);
Weather parameters and water conditions during each
monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cover, visibility, sea
state);
The number of marine mammals observed, by species,
relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was
occurring at time of sighting;
Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals
observed;
PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to
the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or
removal was occurring at time of sighting);
Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during
observation, including direction of travel;
Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by
month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and
estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction
factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate);
Detailed information about any implementation of any
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if
any;
Description of attempts to distinguish between the number
of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such
as ability to track groups or individuals; and
An extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B
harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B
harassment zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that
was not visible, when applicable.
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.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, PSSA shall report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the
regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. The report must
include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
Pile driving and drilling activities have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project 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 DTH drilling. Potential takes could occur if individuals
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. The potential for
harassment is minimized through the construction method and the
implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 7 are based upon
an animal exposed to impact pile driving multiple piles per day.
Considering duration of impact driving each pile (up to 3 minutes) and
breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile
into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the area
estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for
multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement
throughout the area. If an animal was exposed to accumulated sound
energy, the resulting PTS would likely be small (e.g., PTS onset) at
lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the
project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine
mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues
they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the
Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the
area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as
changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-
generating activities per day and that pile driving and removal would
occur across 4-5 months, any harassment would be temporary. There are
no other areas or times of known biological importance for any of the
affected species.
In addition, 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
[[Page 12539]]
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.
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;
Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts
and of low degree;
PSSA would implement mitigation measures such as vibratory
driving piles to the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts, silt
curtains, removal of potentially contaminated sediments, and shut
downs; and
Monitoring reports from similar work in Alaska have
documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is 3.8 percent of the
Clarence Strait stock's best population estimate for harbor seals. The
Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise has no official NMFS abundance estimate
as the most recent estimate is greater than eight years old.
Nevertheless, the most recent estimate was 83,400 animals and it is
highly unlikely this number has drastically declined. Therefore, the 60
authorized takes of this stock clearly represent small numbers of this
stock. The take for harbor porpoise is 4.1 percent of the stock. These
are all likely conservative estimates because they assume all takes are
of different individual animals which is likely not the case. Some
individuals may return multiple times in a day but PSOs would count
them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
As discussed above in the subsistence uses section, subsistence
harvest of harbor seals and other marine mammals is rare in the area
and local subsistence users have not expressed concern about this
project. All project activities will take place within the industrial
area of Tongass Narrows and Ward Cove immediately adjacent to Ketchikan
where subsistence activities do not generally occur. The project also
will not have an adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence use at locations farther away, where these construction
activities are not expected to take place. Some minor, short-term
harassment of the harbor seals could occur, but any effects on
subsistence harvest activities in the region will be minimal, and not
have an adverse impact.
Based on the effects and location of the specified activity, and
the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from PSSA's planned activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the Alaska Region Protected
Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization 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.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to PSSA to conduct the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock project
near Ketchikan, Alaska for one year from the date of issuance, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed Ward
Cove Cruise Ship Dock project. We also request at this time comment on
the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the
paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data
or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for
this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year Renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly
identical, activities as described in the Specified Activities
[[Page 12540]]
section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in
the Specified Activities section of this notice would not be completed
by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for completion of
the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section
of this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA);
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take);
and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized; and
Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: February 26, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-04280 Filed 3-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P