Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Berth III New Mooring Dolphins Project in Ketchikan, Alaska, 12411-12426 [2021-04368]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
Fisheries and Protected Resources’’ in
the subject line of the message.
Instructions: Response to this request
for information (RFI) is voluntary.
Respondents may comment on fisheries,
protected resources or both. For all
submissions, clearly indicate which
issue(s) are being addressed. Email
attachments will be accepted in plain
text, Microsoft Word, or Adobe PDF
formats only. Each individual or
institution is requested to submit only
one response. The Department of
Commerce may post responses to this
RFI, without change, on a Federal
website. NOAA, therefore, requests that
no business proprietary information,
copyrighted information, or personally
identifiable information be submitted in
response to this RFI. Please note that the
U.S. Government will not pay for
response preparation, or for the use of
any information contained in the
response.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Sagar, heather.sagar@noaa.gov,
301–427–8019.
On
January 27, 2021, the President signed a
new Executive Order on Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.
Section 216(c) of the Executive Order
requires the Secretary of Commerce,
through the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, to collect input from
fishermen, regional ocean councils,
fishery management councils, scientists,
and other stakeholders on how to make
fisheries and protected resources more
resilient to climate change, including
changes in management and
conservation measures, and
improvements in science, monitoring,
and cooperative research.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: February 24, 2021.
Benjamin Friedman,
Deputy Under Secretary for Operations,
Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and
NOAA Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–04137 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XA810]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Berth III
New Mooring Dolphins Project in
Ketchikan, Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
City of Ketchikan, Alaska (COK) to
incidentally harass, by Level A and B
harassment, marine mammals during
construction activities associated with
the Berth III New Mooring Dolphins
Project in Ketchikan, AK.
DATES: This Authorization is effective
for a period of one year, from October
1, 2021 through September 30, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pauline, 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:
SUMMARY:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12411
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.
Summary of Request
On May 14, 2020, NMFS received a
request from COK for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to
construction activities associated with
the Berth III Mooring Dolphin Project in
Ketchikan, Alaska. After several
revisions, the application was deemed
adequate and complete on September
22, 2021. COK’s request is for take of
nine species of marine mammals by
harassment, including Level A
harassment of three of these species.
Neither COK nor NMFS expects serious
injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate.
Description of the Specified Activity
COK plans to make improvements to
Berth III, in order to accommodate a
new fleet of large cruise ships (i.e. Bliss
class) and to meet the needs of the
growing cruise ship industry and its
vessels in Southeast Alaska. Expansion
activities include vibratory pile
removal, vibratory pile driving, impact
pile driving and down-the-hole (DTH)
pile installation. Underwater sound
generated by these in-water activities
may result in harassment including
Level B harassment and Level A
harassment of marine mammal species.
In-water work is scheduled to occur
over approximately 120 days between
October 1, 2021 and March 13, 2022
although the IHA would be effective
until September 30, 2022.
The proposed project would install
three new mooring dolphins (MD) with
one at the north end of Berth III (MD#2)
and two at the south end (MD#3 &
MD#4) as shown in Figure 2 in COK’s
IHA application (available online at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12412
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities). A total of 20
piles will be installed. Eight of the piles
are temporary template piles and would
be removed as shown in Table 1. Pile
driving will be conducted from an
anchored barge, utilizing vibratory and
impact hammers to install and remove
piles and DTH pile installation to
position rock sockets and tension
anchors. Rock socketing is a process
where a pile is driven by conventional
vibratory and impact hammers until
reaching solid bedrock. If at that point
the pile cannot support the needed load,
a hole can be drilled into the rock with
a DTH system to allow the pile to be
anchored up to 10 or more feet into the
solid rock. Tension anchoring involves
creating an anchor hole that is smaller
in diameter than the pile. The holes
extend 10 to 20 feet or more below the
bottom of the pile. A steel bar or other
anchoring structure (e.g., rebar frame) is
then grouted or cemented in place from
the bottom of the anchor hole and
extending up to the top of the pile.
Attaching the anchor bar or frame to the
pile then helps anchor the pile in place
to support the required project loads.
TABLE 1—PROJECT PILE TYPES AND QUANTITIES
Location
Item
MD#2 ..............................
Dolphin and Fender Piles ......................................
Temporary Template Piles .....................................
Dolphin Piles ..........................................................
Dolphin Piles ..........................................................
MD#3 ..............................
MD#4 ..............................
A detailed description of the planned
Berth III New Mooring Dolphins Project
is provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR
71612; November 10, 2020). Since that
time, no changes have been made to the
planned activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please
refer to that Federal Register notice for
the description of the specific activity.
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures are described in detail later in
this document (please see Mitigation
and Monitoring and Reporting sections).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue
an IHA to COK was published in the
Federal Register on November 12, 2020
(85 FR 71612). That notice described, in
detail, COK’s activity, the marine
mammal species that may be affected by
the activity, and the anticipated effects
on marine mammals. During the 30-day
public comment period, NMFS received
comments from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission). Please see
the Commission’s letter for full details
regarding their recommendations and
rationale. The letter is available online
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
action/incidental-take-authorizationberth-iii-new-mooring-dolphins-projectketchikan-alaska. A summary of the
Commission’s recommendations as well
as NMFS’ responses is below.
Comment 1: The Commission
inquired about the methodology used to
extrapolate the source level for DTH
installation of 48-inch piles and
recommended that NMFS publish a
revised authorization for public
comment that fully describes its
extrapolation method before issuing any
final authorization to COK.
Response: The extrapolation
technique and software packages
employed by NMFS and described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
Size and type
48-inch
30-inch
36-inch
36-inch
(1.22 m) steel pipe piles ...........................
(0.76 m) steel pipe piles ...........................
(0.9 m) steel pipe piles .............................
(0.9 m) steel pipe piles .............................
below are commonly used and widely
accepted by the scientific community.
In summary, NMFS ran regressions in
the R programming language (version
3.5.1) using the R Commander Graphical
User Interface. Data were average source
levels from recordings of single piles
and available covariates (e.g., water
depth, pile depth, hole size, distance of
sound source measurement) where
NMFS had access to published and
unpublished DTH monitoring data. The
Generalized Linear Model routine in R
Commander was used to assess the fit of
linear and non-linear multiple
regression models of the data. Model
assumptions were assessed graphically
and mathematically and the best fit of
models that fit statistical assumptions
and retained statistically significant
covariates was chosen mathematically.
The best fit model was used to calculate
the source level for the extrapolated
hole size. The calculated source level
was then rounded to the next highest
integer decibel for use in this action.
NMFS does not concur that the notice
of proposed authorization needs to be
re-published given that a re-published
notice would utilize the same
extrapolation methodology and arrive at
the same source level for DTH
installation of 48-inch piles.
Comment 2: The Commission
recommended that NMFS use a
repetition rate of 13 strikes/second and
the proxy source level of 146 dB re 1
mPa2-sec at 10 m from Guan and Miner
(2020) to re-estimate the Level A
harassment and shutdown zones for
DTH pile installation of 12-inch piles.
Response: NMFS did utilize a proxy
source level of 146 dB re 1 mPa2-sec for
DTH pile installation of 12-inch piles.
NMFS does not agree with the
recommendation to use a strike rate of
13 strikes per second as strike rates can
be highly variable. While it appears that
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Qty
6
8
3
3
strike rates may decrease as hole sizes
become smaller, there is no specific
strike rate data available for 12-inch
piles. Therefore, NMFS used a strike
rate across all DTH activities of 10
strikes per second.
Comment 3: The Commission
recommended that NMFS require COK
to conduct sound source and sound
propagation measurements of DTH pile
installation.
Response: NMFS agrees that there
would be value in conducting sound
source testing on some of the piles for
which DTH installation data is not
available. However, the City of
Ketchikan has not budgeted for sound
source verification and propagation
measurements and a requirement of this
nature would not be practicable.
Therefore, NMFS does not concur with
the Commission’s recommendation.
Comment 4: The Commission
recommended that NMFS employ
alternate methodologies to estimate take
of harbor seals. They recommended
either basing take estimates on survey
data from a local haulout location or on
observations made during a COKsponsored rock blasting project (84 FR
36891; July 30, 2019).
Response: There are a number of ways
to estimate take in the absence of
density data. NMFS based take on
observed harbor seal group size near the
project area. This methodology has
previously been employed by NMFS at
other locations in Ketchikan (84 FR
36891; July 30, 2019 and 85 FR 673;
January 7, 2020). Applying the available
haulout data would likely overestimate
take since it assumed that all 83 seals at
the haulout would be taken during each
day of construction. NMFS did use the
data from the COK-sponsored rock
blasting project but interpreted the
results differently than the Commission.
Given that harbor seals are known to
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
follow fishing vessels into the marina,
COK and NMFS assumed that more
seals would be found in or near the
harbor, while the Commission assumed
that the animals would be evenly
distributed across the entire 12.5-km
Level B harassment zone. Since NMFS
believes seal concentrations are likely to
be greater near the harbor, we do not
concur with the Commission’s
recommendation.
Comment 5: The Commission
recommended that NMFS revise
condition 6(b)(ix) in the final
authorization to require COK to report
the number of individuals of each
species detected within the Level A and
B harassment zones, and estimates of
number of marine mammals taken by
Level A and B harassment, by species.
The Commission recommended NMFS
include requirements that COK include
in its monitoring report (1) the
estimated percentages of the Level A
and B harassment zones that were not
visible, (2) an extrapolation of the
estimated takes by Level A and B
harassment based on the number of
observed exposures within the Level A
and B harassment zones and the
percentages of the Level A and B
harassment zones that were not visible
(i.e., extrapolated takes) consistent with
other authorizations, and (3) the total
number of Level A and B harassment
takes based on both the observed and
extrapolated takes for each species.
Response: We do not fully concur
with the Commission’s recommendation
and do not adopt it as stated. NMFS
agrees with the recommendation to
require COK to report the number of
individuals of each species detected
within the harassment zones and has
included this requirement in both the
proposed and final authorizations. (See
condition 6(b)(ix).) NMFS does not
agree with the recommendation to
require COK to report estimates of the
numbers of marine mammals taken by
Level B harassment. The Commission
does not explain why it believes this
requirement is necessary, nor does it
provide recommendations for methods
of generating such estimates in a
manner that would lead to credible
results. NMFS does agree COK should
report the estimated percentage(s) of the
Level B harassment zones that were not
visible, and has included this
requirement in both the proposed and
final authorizations. (See condition
6(b)(iii).) These pieces of information—
numbers of individuals of each species
detected within the harassment zones
and the estimated percentage(s) of the
harassment zones that were not
visible—may be used to glean an
approximate understanding of whether
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
COK may have exceeded the amount of
take authorized. Although the
Commission does not explain its
reasoning for offering these
recommendations, NMFS recognizes the
basic need to understand whether an
IHA-holder may have exceeded its
authorized take. The need to accomplish
this basic function of reporting does not
require that NMFS require applicants to
use methods we do not have confidence
in to generate estimates of ‘‘total take’’
that cannot be considered reliable.
Comment 6: The Commission
recommended that NMFS include in the
final authorization an additional table
that specifies the extents of the Level A
harassment zones that exceed the shutdown zones, particularly for HF
cetaceans and phocids.
Response: The table described by the
Commission has been used very
infrequently and only in situations with
there are limited pile types, pile sizes,
and/or pile installation methods
employed. Such a table would be
cumbersome and unwieldy in this
instance given the numerous pile types,
pile sizes and pile installation methods
planned for use in which different Level
A harassment isopleths are dependent
on either varying duration or strike rate
for both impact and DTH installation.
The information that the Commission
desires is readily available in Table 7
and Table 10.
Comment 7: The Commission
recommended that NMFS reinforce that
COK must keep a running tally of the
total Level A and B harassment takes,
both observed and extrapolated, for each
species consistent with condition 4(g) of
the final authorization.
Response: The IHA indicates the
number of takes authorized for each
species. We agree that COK must ensure
they do not exceed authorized takes, but
do not concur with the Commission’s
repeated recommendations regarding
the need for NMFS to oversee IHAholders’ compliance with issued IHAs,
including the use of a ‘‘running tally’’ of
takes. Regardless of the Commission’s
substitution of the word ‘‘reinforce’’ for
the word ‘‘ensure,’’ as compared with its
prior recommendations for other
actions, compliance with the terms of an
issued IHA remains the responsibility of
the IHA-holder.
Comment 8: The Commission
recommended that NMFS refrain from
issuing a renewal for any authorization
unless it is consistent with the
procedural requirements specified in
section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA.
Response: In prior responses to
comments about IHA Renewals (e.g., 84
FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR
53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12413
explained how the Renewal process, as
implemented, is consistent with the
statutory requirements contained in
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
provides additional efficiencies beyond
the use of abbreviated notices, and,
further, promotes NMFS’ goals of
improving conservation of marine
mammals and increasing efficiency in
the MMPA compliance process.
Therefore, we intend to continue
implementing the Renewal process.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to
Final IHA
NMFS increased authorized take of
harbor porpoise from 40 to 80 and
authorized take of minke whale from 2
to 8 based on informal comments from
the Commission. Authorized take of
humpback whales was also increased
from 68 to 119 due to the daily
occurrence of a single humpback whale
in Tongass Narrows after the notice of
proposed IHA (85 FR 71612; November
12, 2020) had published in the Federal
Register. These changes are described in
detail in the Estimated Take section.
The source level for DTH installation of
12-inch anchors was reduced from 166.2
dB to 162 dB based on data from Guan
and Miner (2020) where 18-inch piles
were measured. Anchor holes for COK
will be 12-inch. Therefore, it is more
accurate to use the 18-inch SL as the
proxy sound source level for 12-inch
anchors compared to 30-, 36- and 48inch piles from Reyff & Heyvaert (2019),
Reyff (2020), and Denes et al. (2019)
which were used to derive 166.2 dB SL
value. Therefore, the Level B
harassment isopleth for DTH
installation of 12-inch anchors was
reduced from 12,023 m to 6,310 m. In
the Monitoring and Reporting section,
NMFS has added language stating that
PSOs must work in rotating shifts of 4
hours and individual PSOs must not
perform duties for more than 12 hours
in a 24-hour period. New language has
also been added requiring PSOs to use
elevated platforms at observation points
to the extent practicable.
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/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more
general information about these species
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12414
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s
website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and authorized
for this action, and summarizes
information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and potential biological removal
(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020).
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’s
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated
or authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’s U.S. Alaska SARs (Muto et al.
2020). All values presented in Table 2
are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available in the
2019 SARs (Muto et al., 2020) and draft
2020 SARs (available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports).
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
MMPA stock
Stock abundance Nbest (CV,
Nmin, most recent abundance
survey) 2
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae
Gray Whale ......................
Family Balaenidae
Humpback whale ..............
Minke whale .....................
Eschrichtius robustus .............
Eastern North Pacific .............
-, -, N
26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) ..
801
139
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ....
Central North Pacific ..............
Alaska .....................................
-, -,Y
-, -, N
10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 2006) ......
N.A. ........................................
83
N.A.
25
0
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 ..................
Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient.
North Pacific ...........................
Phocoena phocoena ..............
Phocoenoides dalli .................
Southeast Alaska ...................
Alaska .....................................
-,
-,
-,
-,
N
N
N
N
2,347 (N.A.; 2,347; 2012) ......
243 (N.A, 243, 2009) .............
302 (N.A.; 302, 2018) ............
587 (N.A.; 587; 2012 ..............
24
2.4
2.2
5.87
1
0
0.2
1
-, -, N
26,880 (N.A.; N.A.; 1990) ......
N.A.
0
-, -, Y
-, -, N
1,354 (0.10; 896; 2012) .........
83,400 (0.097; N.A.; 1991 ......
8.95
N.A.
34
38
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions)
Steller sea lion .................
Family Phocidae (earless
seals)
Harbor seal .......................
Eumetopias jubatus ................
Eastern U.S. ...........................
-, -, N
43,201 (N.A.; 43,201; 2017) ..
2,592
112
Phoca vitulina richardii ...........
Clarence Strait .......................
-, -, N
27,659 (N.A.; 24,854; 2015) ..
746
40
1 Endangered
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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.
As indicated above, all nine species
(with 12 managed stocks) in Table 2
temporally and spatially co-occur with
the activity to the degree that take is
reasonably likely to occur, and we are
authorizing it.
A detailed description of the of the
species likely to be affected by the
project, including brief introductions to
the species and relevant stocks as well
as available information regarding
population trends and threats, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
information regarding local occurrence,
were provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR
71612); since that time, we are not
aware of any changes in the status of
these species and stocks; therefore,
detailed descriptions are not provided
here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for these descriptions.
Please also refer to NMFS’ website
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
species) for generalized species
accounts.
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
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 based on 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
12415
(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 3.
TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[NMFS, 2018]
Hearing group
Generalized hearing range *
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.
* 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. Nine mammal
species (seven cetacean and two
pinniped (one otariid and one phocid)
species) have the reasonable potential to
co-occur with the planned survey
activities. Of the cetacean species that
may be present, three are classified as
low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
mysticete species), two are classified as
mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
delphinid and ziphiid species and the
sperm whale), and two are classified as
high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., porpoise
spp.).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from
pile removal activities have the
potential to result in behavioral
harassment of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the survey area. The notice
of proposed IHA (85 FR 71602;
November 10, 2020) included a
discussion of the effects of
anthropogenic noise on marine
mammals and the potential effects of
underwater noise from WSDOT’s
vibratory pile removal on marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
mammals and their habitat. That
information and analysis is incorporated
by reference into this final IHA
determination and is not repeated here;
please refer to the notice of proposed
IHA (85 FR 71602; November 10, 2020).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will
inform both NMFS’ consideration of
‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible
impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as use of the
acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or
impact pile driving or DTH pile
installation) has the potential to result
in disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals. There is
also some potential for auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to result, primarily
for high frequency cetacean species and
phocid pinnipeds. Auditory injury is
unlikely to occur in low-frequency and
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mid-frequency cetacean species and
otariid pinnipeds. The planned
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 authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take
by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of
activities. We note that while these
basic factors can contribute to a basic
calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional
information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we
describe the factors considered here in
more detail and present the authorized
take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of
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).
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12416
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
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
(e.g., hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS predicts that marine
mammals are likely to be behaviorally
harassed in a manner we consider Level
B harassment when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
COK’s planned activity includes the
use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving, DTH pile installation) and
impulsive (impact pile driving), sources,
and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1
mPa (rms) criteria 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). COK’s planned activity
includes the use of impulsive (impact
pile driving, DTH pile installation) and
non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving/
removal, DTH pile installation) sources.
These thresholds are provided in
Table 4. 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 4—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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD 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
planned project. Marine mammals are
expected to be affected via sound
generated by the primary components of
the project (i.e., vibratory pile driving,
vibratory pile removal, impact pile
driving, and DTH pile installation).
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. An impact hammer is a steel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
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. The actual durations of
each installation method vary
depending on the type of pile, size of
the pile, and substrate characteristics
(e.g. bedrock).
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
from other locations to inform selection
of representative source levels (see
Table 5).
Sound source levels for vibratory
installation of 30-inch steel piles were
obtained by Denes et al. (2016) during
the installation of 30-inch steel pipe
piles at the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal.
Vibratory removal of 30-inch piles is
expected to be quieter than installation,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
so this value is used as a proxy. Sound
levels for vibratory installation of 48inch steel piles were obtained by Austin
et al. (2016) during the installation of
test piles at the Port of Anchorage. The
applicant elected to conservatively
employ sound source levels for the 48inch piles as a proxy to calculate
harassment isopleths for 36-inch piles.
Sound levels for impact installation of
30-inch steel piles were taken from
Denes et al. (2016) during the
installation of piles at the Ketchikan
Ferry Terminal. Sound levels for impact
installation of 48-inch steel piles were
obtained by Austin et al. (2016) during
the installation of test piles at the Port
of Anchorage. Overall median levels
were not reported for peak and single
strike SEL values. Therefore, the highest
values reported for peak and single
strike SEL were used. The highest levels
reported were a peak of 213.2 dB re: 1
mPa at 14 m and a single strike SEL of
186.7 dB re: 1 mPa2–sec on pile IP5 at
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
11 m (Austin et al. 2016). Sound source
levels for 48-inch piles are used as a
proxy to calculate harassment isopleths
for 36-inch piles.
DTH pile installation includes drilling
(non-impulsive sound) and hammering
(impulsive sound) to penetrate rocky
substrates (Denes et al. 2016; Denes et
al. 2019; Reyff and Heyvaert 2019). DTH
pile installation was initially thought be
a primarily non-impulsive noise source.
However, Denes et al.(2019) concluded
from their study in Virginia that DTH
should be characterized as impulsive
based on a >3 dB difference in sound
pressure level in a 0.035-second
window (Southall et al. 2007) compared
to a 1-second window. Therefore, DTH
pile installation is treated as both an
impulsive and non-impulsive noise
source. In order to evaluate Level A
harassment, DTH pile installation
activities are evaluated according to the
impulsive criteria and the User
Spreadsheet may be employed. Level B
harassment isopleths are determined by
applying non-impulsive criteria and
using the 120 dB threshold which is
also used for vibratory driving. This
approach ensures that the largest ranges
to effect for both Level A and Level B
harassment are accounted for in the take
estimation process.
12417
The source level employed to derive
Level B harassment isopleths for DTH
pile installation (socketing) of all pile
sizes was derived from the Denes et al.
(2016) study at Kodiak, Alaska. The
reported median source value for
drilling was determined to be 166.2 dB
RMS.
For DTH anchoring of 12-inch holes,
COK used a sound source level from 18inch piles from Guan and Miner (2020)
as a proxy (146 dB SEL) for Level A
harassment calculations. For DTH
installation of 30 and 36-inch sockets,
source levels from 42-inch holes from
Reyff & Heyvaert (2019), Reyff (2020),
and Denes et al. (2019) were employed.
TABLE 5—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL,
VIBRATORY PILE INSTALLATION, IMPACT PILE INSTALLATION, AND DTH PILE INSTALLATION
Sound source level at 10 meters
Method and pile type
Literature source
SPL rms
SPLPK
SSSEL
Vibratory Hammer
30-inch steel piles ............................
36-and 48-inch steel piles ................
161.9
168.2
........................
........................
........................
........................
Denes et al. 2016.
Austin et al. 2016.
Impact Hammer
30-inch diameters .............................
195
208.5
180.7
Denes et al. 2016.
36- and 48-inch 1 ..............................
198.6
213.2 2
186.7 3
Austin et al. 2016.
DTH Pile Installation
DTH Sockets (48-inch) 4 ..................
166.2
........................
168
Extrapolated from DTH SSV studies listed below;
Denes et al. (2016).
DTH Sockets (30-, 36-inch) 4 ...........
166.2
194
164
DTH Anchors (12-inch) 5 ..................
162
172
146
Reyff & Heyvaert (2019); Reyff (2020); Denes et al.
(2016, Denes et al. 2019).
Guan and Miner (2020).
1 Sound
source levels for 48-inch piles are used as a proxy to calculate harassment isopleths for 36-inch piles.
maximum value measured at 14 m.
maximum value measured at 11 m.
4 DTH drilling source levels for 24-inch piles from Denes et al. (2016) was used as a proxy for 30-inch to 48-inch piles. SL was revised to
166.2 dB from 166 dB utilized in notice of proposed IHA to more accurately reflect averaged results of DTH installation of 30-, 36- and 48-inch
piles from Reyff & Heyvaert (2019); Reyff (2020); Denes et al. (2019).
5 The pile/hole size from Guan and Miner (2020) measured 18-inches and anchor holes for COK will be 12-inches. Therefore, it is more accurate to use the 18-inch SL as the proxy sound source level for 12-inch anchors.
SS SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square.
2 Represents
3 Represents
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
which may result in some degree of
overestimate of Level A harassment
take. However, these tools offer the best
way to predict appropriate isopleths
when more sophisticated 3D modeling
methods are not available, and NMFS
continues to develop ways to
quantitatively refine these tools, and
will qualitatively address the output
where appropriate. For stationary
sources such as impact driving,
vibratory driving and DTH pile
installation example from project,
NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the
distance at which, if a marine mammal
remained at that distance the whole
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
duration of the activity, it would incur
PTS.
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet
(Table 6) and the resulting isopleths are
reported below (Table 7). Level A
harassment thresholds for impulsive
sound sources (impact pile driving,
DTH pile installation) 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 effective Level A harassment
isopleth. Note that the peak SPL for
DTH installation of 48-inch piles is
unknown as no sound source
verification testing has been conducted
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12418
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
on piles of that size. The single strike
SEL was extrapolated using data points
measured for smaller piles during DTH
installation. 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 driver
(installation/
removal of 30inch steel piles)
Vibratory
pile driver
(installation of
36 and 48-inch
steel piles)
Impact
pile driver
(30-inch steel
piles)
Source Level .....
161.9 RMS ......
168.2 RMS ......
180.7 SS SEL
186.7 SS SEL
Weighting Factor
Adjustment
(kHz).
2.5 ...................
2.5 ...................
2 ......................
2 ......................
(a) Activity duration (time)
within 24
hours.
(b) Number of
strikes per pile
(impact) OR
number of
strikes per
second (DTH).
(c) Number of
piles per day.
(a) Up to 6 hrs
OR >6–8
hrs(c) 1.
(a) Up to 6 hrs
OR >6–8 hrs
(c) 1.
.........................
.........................
(a) 1–10 minutes (b) Up
to 500 strikes
(c) 1.
(a) >10–20 minutes.
(b) 501–1,000
strikes (c) 1.
(a) 1–10 minutes (b) Up
to 500 strikes
(c) 1.
(a) >10–20 minutes.
(b) 501–1,000
strikes (c) 1.
.........................
.........................
(a) >20–30 minutes (b)
1,001–1,500
strikes (c) 1.
(a) >20–30 minutes (b)
1,001–1,500
strikes (c) 1.
Propagation
(xLogR).
15 ....................
15 ....................
15 ....................
15 ....................
15
15.
Distance of
source level
measurement
(meters).
10 ....................
10 ....................
10 ....................
11 ....................
10
10.
Equipment type
Impact
pile driver
(36 and 48-inch
steel piles)
DTH sockets
30-, 36-in 1
DTH anchor
(12-inch steel
piles) 2
48-in
164 SS SEL/
194 SPLpk.
168 SS SEL ....
2
146 SS SEL/
172 SPLpk.
2.
(a) Up to 3 hrs
OR >3–6 hrs.
(a) Up to 2 hrs
OR >2–3 hrs
OR >3–4 hrs.
(a) Up to 6 hrs
OR >6–8 hrs.
(b) 10 strike/
sec.
(b) 10 strike/
sec.
(b) 10 strikes/
sec.
(c) 1 .................
(c) 1 .................
(c) 1.
1 DTH drilling source levels for 42-inch piles from Reyff and Heyvaert (2019), (Reyff 2020), and Denes et al. (2019) were used as a proxy for
30- and 36-inch piles.
2 DTH drilling source levels for 18-inch piles from Guan and Miner (2020) were used as a proxy for 12-inch piles.
TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (m) DURING VIBRATORY PILE INSTALLATION/
REMOVAL, IMPACT INSTALLATION AND DTH PILE INSTALLATION FOR EACH HEARING GROUP
PTS onset isopleth (m)
Source
Daily duration
30-inch Vibratory (Installation or Removal)
36- and 48-inch Vibratory ...........................
Down-the-Hole Socket (30-, 36-inch) .........
Down-the-Hole Socket (48-inch) .................
Down the Hole Anchor (12-inch) ................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
30-inch Diesel Impact .................................
36- and 48-inch Diesel Impact ....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
Cetaceans
Low-frequency
Mid-frequency
High-frequency
25.9
31.4
68.1
82.5
1,225.6
1,945.5
1,728.3
2,264.8
2,743.6
122.8
148.7
442
2.3
2.8
6
7.3
43.6
69.3
61.5
80.5
97.6
4.4
5.3
15.7
38.3
46.4
100.7
122
1,459.9
2,317.4
2,058.7
2,697.7
3,268
146.2
177.1
526.4
15.7
19.1
41.4
50.1
655.9
1,041.2
924.9
1,212
1,468.2
65.7
79.6
236.5
1.1
1.3
2.9
3.5
47.8
75.8
67.3
88.2
106.9
4.8
5.8
17.2
701.6
25
835.7
375.4
27.3
919.3
32.7
1,095
492
35.8
1,221.2
43.4
1,454.6
653.5
47.9
1,938.5
68.9
2,309
1,037.4
75.5
Up to 6 hours ...........
7 to 8 hours ..............
Up to 6 hours ...........
7 to 8 hours ..............
Up to 3 hours ...........
4 to 6 hours ..............
Up to 2 .....................
>2 to 3 hours ............
>3 to 4 hours ............
Up to 6 hours ...........
7 to 8 hours ..............
Up to 500 strikes (1–
10 minutes).
501–1,000 strikes
(11–20 minutes).
1,001–1,500 strikes
(21–30 minutes).
Up to 500 strikes (1–
10 minutes).
501–1,000 strikes
(11–20 minutes).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Pinnipeds
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Phocid
Otariid
12419
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS (m) DURING VIBRATORY PILE INSTALLATION/
REMOVAL, IMPACT INSTALLATION AND DTH PILE INSTALLATION FOR EACH HEARING GROUP—Continued
PTS onset isopleth (m)
Source
Daily duration
Cetaceans
Low-frequency
Mid-frequency
High-frequency
2,540.1
90.3
3,025.7
1,001–1,500 strikes
(21–30 minutes).
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),
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD 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 COK’s
planned activity.
Using the practical spreading model,
COK 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 of
36 and 48-inch diameter piles. Other
activities, including rock anchoring and
impact pile driving, have smaller Level
B harassment zones. All Level B
harassment isopleths are reported in
Table 8 below. It should be noted that
based on the geography of Tongass
Narrows and the surrounding islands,
sound will not reach the full distance of
the Level B harassment isopleth. The
largest Level B Harassment isopleth will
be truncated by land masses at
approximately 12,500 m to the southeast
and approximately 3,590 m northwest of
the project area. Constraining land
masses include Revillagigedo Island,
Gravina Island, Pennock Island and
Spire Island.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
Pinnipeds
Phocid
1,359.4
Otariid
99
Authorization of Level A harassment
takes was requested by COK for harbor
seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall’s
porpoise. Harbor seals are habituated to
Behavioral
disturbance
fishing vessels and may follow vessels
isopleth
that enter the marina. Dall’s and harbor
(m) 120 dB
porpoises’ small size and speed make it
possible that these animals could occur
6,213 within the Level A harassment zones
16,343 and potentially incur injury prior to
12,023 detection.
TABLE 8—CALCULATED LEVEL B
HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
Source
30-inch Vibratory (Installation
or Removal) ......................
36- and 48-inch Vibratory .....
DTH installation 1 (Socket) ...
DTH installation (anchor) 2 ...
30-inch Diesel Impact ...........
36- and 48-inch Diesel Impact ...................................
6,310
2,154
3,744
1 SL of 166.2 dB was used for socket installation instead of 166 as used in notice of proposed IHA.
2 SL of 162 dB (Guan and Miner 2020) was
used for 12-inch anchor installation.
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals
that will inform the take calculations.
Note that there is no density data for
any of the species near the Berth III
mooring dolphin project area, therefore
the take estimate is informed by
qualitative data.
The number of marine mammals that
may be exposed to harassment
thresholds is calculated by estimating
the likelihood of a marine mammal
being present within a harassment zone
during the associated activities.
Estimated marine mammal abundance is
determined by reviewing local and
regional reports, surveys, permits and
observations of abundance and
frequency near the planned project
action. For example, for species that are
common with the potential to occur
daily, the take calculations are based on
the group size multiplied by the
projected number of days of underwater
noise activities. For species that are less
common, take estimates are based on
group size multiplied by the frequency
(e.g. weekly, monthly). The estimated
number of takes are based upon
reasonable ranges from the best
information currently available for these
species near the project area.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales occur frequently in
Tongass Narrows and the adjacent
Clarence Strait during summer and fall
months to feed, but are less common
during winter and spring. The average
group size during the fall surveys was
two whales according to Dalheim et al.
(2009). Local reports of humpback
whale group size in Tongass Narrows
are similar, with the typical size being
between 1 and 3. During the spring
months, humpback whales tend to
congregate in areas outside of the
Ketchikan area, such as Lynn Canal and
Fredrick Sound. Therefore, it is
assumed that the occurrence of
humpback whales in the project area is
two individuals twice per week
throughout the project. A group size of
two was also assumed in the Biological
Opinion provided to the US Army Corp
of Engineers (USACE) for the Alaska
Department of Transportation & Public
Ferries (ADOT&PF) Berth improvement
project in Tongass Narrows (NMFS
2019).
In the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR
71612; November 12, 2020) NMFS
estimated that up to 2 individuals could
be exposed to underwater noise twice a
week during the 17 weeks of the
project’s in-water work, for a total of 68
incidents of take from the Central North
Pacific stock. Wade et al. (2016)
determined that 6.1 percent of all
humpback whales in Southeast Alaska
and northern British Columbia were
members of the Mexico DPS, while all
others are assumed to be members of the
Hawaii DPS. Therefore, NMFS had
proposed to authorize 68 incidents of
take by Level B harassment from the
Central North Pacific Stock with 64
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12420
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
instances from the Hawaii DPS and four
instances from the endangered Mexico
DPS. However, NMFS has increased
authorized take by Level B harassment
due to the daily presence of a single
humpback whale close to Ketchikan
during the month of November (USA
Today, December 1, 2020). NMFS
assumed that one whale would be
present in the project area daily
throughout the duration of the project.
Based on the recent occurrence
information, we estimate that one
humpback whale will be within the
Level B harassment zone daily for 17
weeks.
Therefore:
(7 × 17) = 119 exposures of Central
North Pacific stock humpback whales
to Level B harassment
As described above, an estimated 6.1
percent of humpback whales in
Southeast Alaska are from the Mexico
DPS (Wade et al. 2016). Therefore, of the
119 animals potentially exposed to
Level B harassment due to Berth III pile
driving activities, 6.1 percent or 7 of
these 119 exposures would be ESAlisted Mexico DPS humpback whales,
and the remaining 112 would most
likely from the non-listed Hawaii DPS.
Take by Level A harassment is not
expected for humpback whales because
of the expected effectiveness of the
monitoring and mitigation measures.
While calculated Level A harassment
zones are up to 2,800 m, multiple
protected species observers (PSOs) will
monitoring Tongass Narrows which is <
less than 600 m in width and represents
a much smaller effective Level A
harassment zone. Humpbacks are
usually readily visible, therefore,
shutdown measures can be
implemented prior to any humpback
whales incurring PTS within Level A
harassment zones.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lion abundance in the
Tongass Narrows area is not well known
and no systematic studies of Steller sea
lions have been conducted in or near
the Tongass Narrows area. However, sea
lions are known to occur in the Tongass
Narrows area throughout the year with
peak numbers March through
September (ADOT 2019). Sea lions may
be present during salmon and herring
runs and are known to visit hatcheries
and fish processing facilities in the
vicinity.
Group sizes are generally 6 to 10
individuals (Freitag 2017) but have been
reported to reach 80 animals (Freitag
2017). COK assumed one large group of
10 individuals could be present each
day in the project vicinity based on HDR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
(2019) and Freitag (2017) (as cited in 83
FR 22009; May 11, 2018). NMFS agrees
that this daily estimate is appropriate
and therefore has authorized up to 1,200
takes by Level B harassment.
Take by Level A harassment is not
expected for Steller sea lions because of
the relatively small Level A harassment
zones for otariids (Table 7) and the
expected effectiveness of the monitoring
and mitigation measures discussed
below.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seal densities in the Tongass
Narrows area are not well known. No
systematic studies of harbor seals have
been conducted in or near Tongass
Narrows. Seals are known to occur yearround with little seasonal variation in
abundance (Freitag 2017) and local
experts estimate that there are about 1
to 3 harbor seals in Tongass Narrows
every day, in addition to those that
congregate near the seafood processing
plants and fish hatcheries. COK
conducted pinnacle rock blasting in
December 2019 and January 2020 near
the vicinity of the planned project and
recorded a total of 21 harbor seal
sightings of 24 individuals over 76.2
hours of pre- and post-blast monitoring
(Sitkiewicz 2020). Harbor seals were
observed in groups ranging from 1–3
animals throughout the 0.70-mile (1.12kilometer) observation zone. Based on
this knowledge, COK assumed an
average group size in Tongass Narrows
of three individuals. They anticipated
that three groups of three harbor seals
per group could be exposed to projectrelated underwater noise each day for
120 days of in-water work. Given that
harbor seals are known to follow fishing
vessels into the marina and may be
difficult to detect, COK assumed that
one group of three seals could be taken
by Level A harassment daily, resulting
in 360 Level A harassment takes. NMFS
agreed with these assumptions and,
therefore, has authorized 720 takes by
Level B harassment and 360 takes by
Level A harassment.
Dall’s Porpoise
The mean group size of Dall’s
porpoise in Southeast Alaska is
estimated at approximately three
individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009;
Jefferson et al., 2019). However, in the
Ketchikan vicinity, Dall’s porpoises are
reported to typically occur in groups of
10–15 animals, with an estimated
maximum group size of 20 animals
(Freitag 2017, as cited in 83 FR 22009,
May 11, 2018). Overall, sightings of
Dall’s porpoise are infrequent near
Ketchikan, but they could be present on
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
any given day during the construction
period.
COK assumed that a maximum group
size of 20 Dall’s porpoise could occur in
the project area each month. NMFS
concurs with this assessment and has
authorized 80 takes of Dall’s porpoise
over the anticipated four-month project
duration.
Given the large size of the Level A
harassment zone associated with impact
pile driving for high-frequency
cetaceans, it is possible Dall’s porpoises
may enter the Level A harassment zone
undetected. Therefore, NMFS has
authorized a total of 60 takes of Dall’s
porpoise by Level B harassment and 20
takes by Level A harassment over the
course of the project.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory;
therefore, occurrence estimates are not
dependent on season. Freitag (2017 as
cited in 83 FR 37473; August 1, 2018)
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). Based on this previous
information from the Ketchikan Berth IV
Expansion project and the AKDOT
Tongass Narrows project, COK
estimated that two groups of five harbor
porpoise may enter the Tongass
Narrows twice per month. NMFS agrees
with this estimate and, therefore, has
authorized 80 takes of harbor porpoise
during the duration of the project.
Given that harbor porpoises are
stealthy, having no visible blow and a
low profile in the water making the
species difficult for monitors to detect
(Dahlheim et al. 2015), COK requested
that a total of 20 takes of harbor
porpoises by Level A harassment be
authorized. Therefore, NMFS has
authorized 20 takes of harbor porpoise
by Level A harassment and 60 takes by
Level B harassment. The number of
proposed takes in the proposed IHA (40)
was incorrect due to a mathematical
error.
Killer Whale
Typical pod sizes observed within the
project vicinity range from 1 to 10
animals. COK assumed that the
frequency of killer whales passing
through the action area is estimated to
be once per month and also
conservatively assumed a pod size of 10.
Therefore, NMFS has authorized 40
takes of killer whales by Level B
harassment.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12421
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
Take by Level A harassment is not
expected for killer whales because of the
small Level A harassment zones for
mid-frequency cetaceans and the
expected effectiveness of the monitoring
and mitigation measures discussed
below.
Gray Whale
Gray whales have not been reported
within the Tongass Narrows; however,
their presence cannot be entirely
discounted. Since the largest Level B
harassment zone extends beyond
Tongass Narrows, COK assumed that up
to two gray whales may be taken per
month. Therefore, NMFS has authorized
up to 8 takes of gray whale by Level B
harassment.
Due to the unlikely occurrence of gray
whales and the ability to shut down pile
driving activities prior to a whale
entering the Level A harassment zone,
no Level A harassment takes of gray
whales were requested or are
authorized.
Minke Whale
There are no known occurrences of
minke whales within the project area
although they may be present in
Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait
year-round. Their abundance
throughout Southeast Alaska is low.
However, minke whales are distributed
throughout a wide variety of habitats
and could occur near the project area.
Minke whales are generally sighted as
individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
NMFS had proposed to authorize two
minke whale takes by Level B
harassment in the proposed IHA.
However, based on an informal
comment from the Commission, NMFS
has increased to eight the authorized
take of minke whales (two takes per
month) since they are at least if not
more likely to occur in Tongass Narrows
compared to gray whales, which have
never been observed in Tongass
Narrows. No Level A harassment takes
of minke whales are anticipated due to
the very limited occurrence of minke
whales and the ability to shut down pile
driving activities prior to a whale
entering the Level A harassment zone.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins have not
been reported within the Tongass
Narrows; however, the dolphin is
within its range and thus its presence
cannot be discounted. Pacific whitesided dolphin group sizes generally
range from between 20 and 164 animals.
For the purposes of this assessment,
COK assumed one group of 30 dolphins
may be present within the Level B
harassment zone every tenth day, or
about every other week, similar to what
was estimated for a prior IHA (84 FR
36891; July 30, 2019). Therefore, NMFS
has authorized 360 takes of Pacific
white-sided dolphin by Level B
harassment.
No Level A takes are expected due to
the relatively small size of Level A
harassment zone for mid-frequency
cetaceans which can be readily
monitored.
Table 9 below summarizes the
authorized take for all the species
described above as a percentage of stock
abundance.
TABLE 9—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND B HARASSMENT AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE
Level B
takes
Species
Humpback whale 1 ...........................................................................................
Steller sea lion eDPS ......................................................................................
Harbor seal ......................................................................................................
Dall’s porpoise .................................................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................................................
Killer whale 2
AK resident ...............................................................................................
West coast transient .................................................................................
Northern resident ......................................................................................
Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient .....................
Gray whale .......................................................................................................
Pacific white-sided Dolphin ..............................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................................
Level A
takes
Stock
abundance
Percent of
stock
119
1,200
720
60
60
N/A
N/A
360
20
20
10,103
43,201
27,659
83,400
1,354
1.18
2.78
3.90
0.09
5.90
40
........................
........................
........................
8
360
8
N/A
........................
........................
........................
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,347
243
302
587
26,960
26,880
N/A
1.70
16.46
13.25
6.81
0.03
1.34
N/A
1 Assumes that 6.1 percent of humpback whales exposed are members of the Mexico DPS (Wade et al. 2016). Distribution of take by ESA status is 112 Level B takes for Hawaii DPS and 7 Level B take for Mexico DPS.
2 These percentages assume all takes come from the same killer whale stock, thus the percentage should be adjusted down if multiple stocks
are actually affected.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12422
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
required for this IHA:
• For in-water heavy machinery work
other than pile driving, if a marine
mammal comes within 10 m, operations
shall cease and vessels shall reduce
speed to the minimum level required to
maintain steerage and safe working
conditions. This type of work could
include the following activities: (1)
Movement of the barge to the pile
location; or (2) positioning of the pile on
the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing
the pile);
• Briefings must be conducted
between construction supervisors and
crews and the marine mammal
monitoring team prior to the start of all
pile driving activity and when new
personnel join the work, to explain
responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, and operational procedures;
• For those marine mammals for
which take has not been authorized, inwater pile installation and removal will
shut down immediately if such species
are observed within or entering the
Level A or Level B harassment zone;
and
• If take reaches the authorized limit
for an authorized species, pile
installation and removal will be stopped
as these species approach the Level A or
Level B harassment zone to avoid
additional take.
• COK is required to implement all
mitigation measures described in the
biological opinion (issued on DATE).
The following mitigation measures
would apply to COK’s in-water
construction activities.
• Establishment of Shutdown
Zones—COK will establish shutdown
zones for all pile driving and removal
activities. The purpose of a shutdown
zone is generally to define an area
within which shutdown of the activity
would occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area). Shutdown
zones will vary based on the activity
type and marine mammal hearing group
(Table 10). Due to sediment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
characteristics and variation in pile
sizes, COK does not know how much
time will be required for vibratory
driving/removal and DTH installation at
each pile or how many strikes will be
required for impact installation. Given
this uncertainty, COK will utilize a
tiered system to identify and monitor
appropriate shutdown zones based on
activity duration or the number of
strikes required for pile installation or
removal. During vibratory driving/
removal and DTH pile installation, the
shutdown zone size will initially be set
at the lowest tier, which represents the
least amount of active installation/
removal time. Shutdown zones will be
expanded to the next largest zone after
Tier 1 time period has elapsed. For
those activities with three specified tiers
(i.e., impact driving, DTH socketing),
the shutdown zone will be expanded to
the largest isopleths identified in Tier 3
if the activity extends beyond the Tier
2 active time period. During impact
driving, the shutdown zones associated
with 0–500 strikes will be monitored
until 500 strikes have occurred. The
shutdown zones will increase to the
next tier between 501–1,000 strikes.
After 1,000 strikes the shutdown zones
will subsequently be increased to the
largest zone sizes.
• If a marine mammal is entering or
is observed within an established
shutdown zone, pile driving must be
halted or delayed. Pile driving may not
commence or resume until either the
animal has voluntarily left and been
visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone or 15 minutes have
passed without subsequent detections of
small cetaceans and pinnipeds; or 30
minutes have passed without
subsequent detections of large
cetaceans.
• The placement of PSOs during all
pile driving and removal activities
(described in detail in the Monitoring
and Reporting section) will ensure that
the entire shutdown zone is visible
during pile installation. Should
environmental conditions deteriorate
such that marine mammals within the
entire shutdown zone would not be
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile
driving and removal must be delayed
until the PSO is confident marine
mammals within the shutdown zone
could be detected.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• PSOs—COK will employ PSOs who
will be able to fully monitor Level A
harassment zones. Placement of PSOs
will allow observation of marine
mammals within the large segments of
the Level B harassment zones. However,
due to the large size of some of the Level
B harassment zones (Table 8), PSOs will
not be able to effectively observe the
entire zone.
• Pre-activity Monitoring—Prior to
the start of daily in-water construction
activity, or whenever a break in pile
driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer
occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown
and monitoring zones for a period of 30
minutes. The shutdown zone will be
considered cleared when a marine
mammal has not been observed within
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a
marine mammal is observed within the
shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot
proceed until the animal has left the
zone or has not been observed for 15
minutes. When a marine mammal for
which take is authorized is present in
the harassment zone, activities may
begin. If work ceases for more than 30
minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of
the shutdown zones will commence.
• Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are
believed to provide additional
protection to marine mammals by
providing warning and/or giving marine
mammals a chance to leave the area
prior to the hammer operating at full
capacity. For impact pile driving, COK
will be required to provide an initial set
of three strikes from the hammer at
reduced energy, followed by a thirtysecond waiting period. This procedure
will be conducted three times before
impact pile driving begins. Soft start
will be implemented at the start of each
day’s impact pile driving and at any
time following cessation of impact pile
driving for a period of thirty minutes or
longer.
• Scheduling—Pile driving or
removal activities must occur during
daylight hours. If poor environmental
conditions restrict visibility of the
shutdown zones (e.g., from excessive
wind or fog, high Beaufort state), pile
installation may not be initiated. Work
that has begun with a fully cleared Level
B harassment zone may continue during
inclement weather (e.g., fog, heavy rain)
or periods of limited visibility.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12423
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN AND MONITORING ZONES FOR EACH DRIVING/REMOVAL ACTIVITY
Pile size
Low frequency
cetacean
shutdown area
(m)
Mid frequency
cetacean
shutdown area
(m)
High
frequency
shutdown area
(m) (harbor
porpoise, dall’s
porpoise) 1
40
90
10
10
50
50
500
700
1,000
1,300
40
50
10
40
2,200
50
50
10
50
3,800
2,000
70
80
2,600
90
100
1,300
2,000
1,750
2,300
2,750
50
70
65
85
100
50
150
10
50
Phocid
pinniped
shutdown area
(m) (harbor
seal)
Otariid
pinniped
shutdown area
(m) (steller
sea lion)
Level B
harassment
zone (m)
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
30-inch piles up to 8 hrs ..........................
36- and 48-inch piles up to 8 hrs ............
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles up to 500 strikes .................
30-inch piles 501 to 1,000 strikes ............
30-inch piles 1,001 to 1,500 strikes .........
36- and 48-inch piles up to 500 strikes ...
36- and 48-inch piles 501 to 1,000
strikes ...................................................
36- and 48-inch piles 1,001 to 1,500
strikes ...................................................
DTH Socket:
30-, 36-inch piles up to 3 hrs ...................
30-, 36-inch piles 3 hrs—6 hrs ................
48-inch piles up to 2 hours ......................
48-inch piles >2 to 3 hrs ..........................
48-inch piles >3 to 4 hours ......................
DTH Anchor:
12-inch hole up to 8 hours .......................
1 Represents
Monitoring and Reporting
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
10
6,300
1 12,500
50
12,500
70
100
110
10
6,350
largest Level B Harassment isopleth. Note that isopleth is truncated by land masses at 12,500 meters.
To minimize impacts to marine
mammals and their prey vibratory
installation will be used as the primary
methods of pile installation. Impact
driving will be minimized and used
only as needed to seat the pile in its
final position or to penetrate material
that is too dense for a vibratory hammer.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s planned measures, as well as
other measures considered by NMFS,
we have determined that the required
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.
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 planned action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
10
10
18:48 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. Marine mammal monitoring
during pile driving and removal must be
conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in
a manner consistent with the following:
• Independent PSOs (i.e., not
construction personnel) who have no
other assigned tasks during monitoring
periods must be used;
• At least one PSO must have prior
experience performing the duties of a
PSO during construction activity
pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental
take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute
education (degree in biological science
or related field) or training for
experience;
• Where a team of two or more PSOs
are required, a lead observer or
monitoring coordinator must be
designated. The lead observer must have
prior experience working as a marine
mammal observer during construction;
• COK must submit PSO Curriculum
Vitae for approval by NMFS prior to the
onset of pile driving;
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12424
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
• PSOs must work in rotating shifts of
4 hours and individual PSOs must not
perform duties for more than 12 hours
in a 24-hour period; and
• PSOs must use elevated platforms
at observation points to the extent
practicable.
PSOs should have the following
additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of
behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including but not
limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and
times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times,
and reason for implementation of
mitigation (or why mitigation was not
implemented when required); and
marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
A minimum of three onshore
observers will be stationed along
Tongass Narrows at locations that
provide optimal visual coverage for
shutdown and monitoring zones. To
maximize the visual coverage of
shutdown and monitoring zones,
observers will use elevated platforms at
observation points to the extent
practicable. Observers will be in contact
with each other via two-way radio and
with a cellular phone used as back-up
communications. The primary purpose
of this observer is to implement the
shutdown zones and monitor the Level
B harassment zones. PSOs must be
positioned in order to focus on
monitoring these zones. PSOs would
scan the waters using binoculars, and/
or spotting scopes, and would use a
handheld global positioning system
(GPS) or range-finder device to verify
the distance to each sighting from the
project site.
Monitoring will be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after pile driving/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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
the time to install or remove a single
pile or series of piles, as long as the time
elapsed between uses of the pile driving
equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
Reporting
A draft marine mammal monitoring
report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
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) and estimated
observable distance (if less than the
harassment zone distance).
• 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 and
estimated time spent within the Level A
and Level B harassment zones while the
source was active;
• Number of individuals of each
species (differentiated by month as
appropriate) detected within the
harassment zones,;
• 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
• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or
raw sighting data (in a separate file from
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Final Report referenced immediately
above).
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, the
IHA-holder shall report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources (OPR)
(301–427–8401), NMFS and to the
Alaska regional stranding coordinator
(907–586–7209) as soon as feasible. If
the death or injury was clearly caused
by the specified activity, the IHA-holder
must immediately cease the specified
activities until NMFS is able to review
the circumstances of the incident and
determine what, if any, additional
measures are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the terms of the IHA.
The IHA-holder must not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS.
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
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).
Vibratory pile removal, vibratory pile
driving, impact pile driving, and DTH
pile installation have the potential to
disturb or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, these planned project
activities may result in take, in the form
of Level A harassment and Level B
harassment. Potential takes could occur
if individuals are present in the
ensonified zone when these activities
are underway. No mortality is
anticipated given the nature of the
activity and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to
marine mammals.
The Level A harassment zones
identified in Table 7 are based upon an
animal exposed to vibratory pile
driving, impact pile driving, and DTH
pile installation for periods of time
ranging from 30 minutes for impact
driving, up to 8 hours for vibratory
driving, up to 6 hours for DTH socketing
and 8 hours for DTH anchoring.
Exposures of this length are unlikely for
vibratory driving/removal and DTH pile
installation scenarios given marine
mammal movement throughout the area.
Even during impact driving scenarios,
an animal exposed to the accumulated
sound energy would likely experience
only limited PTS at the 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. Given that the installation of
12 permanent piles and eight temporary
piles would occur over 4 months, any
harassment would be temporary and
intermittent. Effects on individuals that
are taken by Level B harassment, on the
basis of reports in the literature as well
as monitoring from other similar
activities, will likely be limited to
reactions such as increased swimming
speeds, increased surfacing time, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
decreased foraging (if such activity were
occurring) (Southall et al. 2007, ABR
2016). Most likely, individuals will
simply move away from the sound
source and be temporarily displaced
from the areas of pile driving. These
reactions and behavioral changes are
expected to subside quickly when the
exposures cease.
The potential for harassment is
minimized through the implementation
of the required mitigation measures.
During all impact driving,
implementation of soft start procedures
and monitoring of established shutdown
zones shall be required, significantly
reducing any possibility of injury. Given
sufficient notice through use of soft start
(for impact driving), marine mammals
are expected to move away from an
irritating sound source prior to it
becoming potentially injurious. To
reduce the severity of in-water noise,
vibratory pile driving will be the
primary installation method for the
project and impact hammers will only
be used to seat pile tips into fractured
bedrock ahead of the hammering
operations or if material is encountered
that is too dense to penetrate with a
vibratory hammer.
The planned project is located within
an active marine commercial and
industrial area with no known pinniped
haulouts or rookeries near the project
area. While construction of mooring
dolphins at Berth III would have some
permanent removal of habitat available
to marine mammals, the area lost is
relatively small and not of particular
importance to any marine mammals.
Any impacts on prey that would
occur during in-water construction
would have at most short-terms effects
on foraging of individual marine
mammals, and likely no effect on the
populations of marine mammals as a
whole. Therefore, effects on marine
mammal prey during the construction
are expected to be minimal and,
therefore, are unlikely to cause
substantial effects on marine mammals
at the individual or population level.
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
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.
For all species except humpback
whales, there are no known BIAs near
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12425
the project zone that would be impacted
by COK’s planned activities. For
humpback whales, the whole of
Southeast Alaska is a seasonal BIA from
spring through late fall (Ferguson et al.,
2015). However, Tongass Narrows and
Clarence Strait are not important
portions of this habitat due to
development and human presence.
Tongass Narrows is also a small
passageway and represents a very small
portion of the total available habitat for
humpback whales. Finally, there is no
ESA-designated critical habitat for
humpback whales.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our 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 limited and of low degree;
• Mitigation measures such as
employing vibratory driving to the
maximum extent practicable, soft-starts,
and shut downs will be implemented;
• Impacts to marine mammal habitat
are anticipated to be minimal;
• The project area is located in an
industrialized and commercial marina;
• The project area does not include
any rookeries, or known areas or
features of special significance for
foraging or reproduction; and
• The anticipated incidents of Level B
harassment consist of, at worst,
temporary modifications in behavior.
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
required monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total
marine mammal take from the planned
activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares
the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of
abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether
an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. When the
predicted number of individuals to be
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
12426
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
taken is fewer than one third of the
species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
The number of instances of take for
each species or stock authorized to be
taken as a result of this project is
included in Table 9. Our analysis shows
that less than one-third of the best
available population abundance
estimate of each species or stock could
be taken by harassment. The number of
animals authorized to be taken for each
authorized stock would be considered
small relative to the relevant stock’s
abundances even if each estimated
taking occurred to a new individual,
which is an unlikely scenario.
The west coast transient stock of killer
whales represents the highest
percentage of a single stock (<17
percent) that is authorized take. This
take percentage also assumes that all
authorized killer whale takes would be
from this stock, which is highly unlikely
given the expansive range of the stock.
A lack of an accepted stock
abundance value for the Alaska stock of
minke whale did not allow for the
calculation of an expected percentage of
the population that would be affected.
The most relevant estimate of partial
stock abundance is 1,232 minke whales
in coastal waters of the Alaska
Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Zerbini
et al., 2006). Given that two takes by
Level B harassment are authorized for
the stock, comparison to the best
estimate of stock abundance shows less
than 0.2 percent of the stock is expected
to be impacted.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the planned activity (including
the required mitigation and monitoring
measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that
small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Mar 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.
Alaska Native hunters in the
Ketchikan vicinity do not traditionally
harvest cetaceans (Muto et al. 2020).
Harbor seals are the most commonly
targeted marine mammal that is hunted
by Alaska Native subsistence hunters
within the Ketchikan area. In 2012 an
estimated 595 harbor seals were taken
for subsistence uses, with 22 of those
occurring in Ketchikan (Wolfe et al.
2012). This is the most recent data
available. The harbor seal harvest per
capita in both communities was low, at
0.02 for Ketchikan. ADF&G subsistence
data for Southeast Alaska shows that
from 1992 through 2008, plus 2012,
from zero to 19 Steller sea lions were
taken by Alaska Native hunters per year
with typical harvest years ranging from
zero to five animals (Wolfe et al. 2013)
In 2012, it is estimated nine sea lions
were taken in all of Southeast Alaska
and only from Hoonah and Sitka. There
are no known haulout locations in the
project area. Both the harbor seal and
the Steller sea lion may be temporarily
displaced from the action area.
However, neither the local population
nor any individual pinnipeds are likely
to be adversely impacted by the planned
action beyond noise-induced
harassment or slight injury. The
planned project is anticipated to have
no long-term impact on Steller sea lion
or harbor seal populations, or their
habitat no long term impacts on the
availability of marine mammals for
subsistence uses is anticipated.
Based on the description of the
specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects
on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence purposes, and the
required mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS has determined that
there will not be an unmitigable adverse
impact on subsistence uses from COK’s
planned activities.
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
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
determined that the issuance of the IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources consults internally whenever
we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species, in
this case with the NMFS Alaska
Regional Office.
There is one marine mammal species
(Mexico DPS humpback whale) with
confirmed occurrence in the project area
that is listed as endangered under the
ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office
Protected Resources Division issued a
Biological Opinion under section 7 of
the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to
the City of Ketchikan under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS
Permits and Conservation Division. The
Biological Opinion concluded that the
issuance of an IHA to COK is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
Mexico DPS humpback whales or
adversely modify critical habitat
because none exists in the area.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the City
of Ketchikan for in-water construction
activities associated with the Berth III
Expansion Project in Ketchikan, Alaska
between October 1, 2021 and September
30, 2022, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: February 26, 2021.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–04368 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12411-12426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04368]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XA810]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Berth III New Mooring Dolphins
Project in Ketchikan, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the City of Ketchikan, Alaska (COK) to incidentally harass, by Level A
and B harassment, marine mammals during construction activities
associated with the Berth III New Mooring Dolphins Project in
Ketchikan, AK.
DATES: This Authorization is effective for a period of one year, from
October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, 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.
Summary of Request
On May 14, 2020, NMFS received a request from COK for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated
with the Berth III Mooring Dolphin Project in Ketchikan, Alaska. After
several revisions, the application was deemed adequate and complete on
September 22, 2021. COK's request is for take of nine species of marine
mammals by harassment, including Level A harassment of three of these
species. Neither COK nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to
result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of the Specified Activity
COK plans to make improvements to Berth III, in order to
accommodate a new fleet of large cruise ships (i.e. Bliss class) and to
meet the needs of the growing cruise ship industry and its vessels in
Southeast Alaska. Expansion activities include vibratory pile removal,
vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving and down-the-hole (DTH)
pile installation. Underwater sound generated by these in-water
activities may result in harassment including Level B harassment and
Level A harassment of marine mammal species. In-water work is scheduled
to occur over approximately 120 days between October 1, 2021 and March
13, 2022 although the IHA would be effective until September 30, 2022.
The proposed project would install three new mooring dolphins (MD)
with one at the north end of Berth III (MD#2) and two at the south end
(MD#3 & MD#4) as shown in Figure 2 in COK's IHA application (available
online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-
protection/
[[Page 12412]]
incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities). A total of 20
piles will be installed. Eight of the piles are temporary template
piles and would be removed as shown in Table 1. Pile driving will be
conducted from an anchored barge, utilizing vibratory and impact
hammers to install and remove piles and DTH pile installation to
position rock sockets and tension anchors. Rock socketing is a process
where a pile is driven by conventional vibratory and impact hammers
until reaching solid bedrock. If at that point the pile cannot support
the needed load, a hole can be drilled into the rock with a DTH system
to allow the pile to be anchored up to 10 or more feet into the solid
rock. Tension anchoring involves creating an anchor hole that is
smaller in diameter than the pile. The holes extend 10 to 20 feet or
more below the bottom of the pile. A steel bar or other anchoring
structure (e.g., rebar frame) is then grouted or cemented in place from
the bottom of the anchor hole and extending up to the top of the pile.
Attaching the anchor bar or frame to the pile then helps anchor the
pile in place to support the required project loads.
Table 1--Project Pile Types and Quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Item Size and type Qty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD#2..................................... Dolphin and Fender Piles... 48-inch (1.22 m) steel pipe 6
piles.
Temporary Template Piles... 30-inch (0.76 m) steel pipe 8
piles.
MD#3..................................... Dolphin Piles.............. 36-inch (0.9 m) steel pipe 3
piles.
MD#4..................................... Dolphin Piles.............. 36-inch (0.9 m) steel pipe 3
piles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed description of the planned Berth III New Mooring
Dolphins Project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (85 FR 71612; November 10, 2020). Since that time, no
changes have been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for the description of the specific activity.
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting sections).
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to COK was published in
the Federal Register on November 12, 2020 (85 FR 71612). That notice
described, in detail, COK's activity, the marine mammal species that
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine
mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received
comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). Please see the
Commission's letter for full details regarding their recommendations
and rationale. The letter is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-berth-iii-new-mooring-dolphins-project-ketchikan-alaska. A summary of the
Commission's recommendations as well as NMFS' responses is below.
Comment 1: The Commission inquired about the methodology used to
extrapolate the source level for DTH installation of 48-inch piles and
recommended that NMFS publish a revised authorization for public
comment that fully describes its extrapolation method before issuing
any final authorization to COK.
Response: The extrapolation technique and software packages
employed by NMFS and described below are commonly used and widely
accepted by the scientific community. In summary, NMFS ran regressions
in the R programming language (version 3.5.1) using the R Commander
Graphical User Interface. Data were average source levels from
recordings of single piles and available covariates (e.g., water depth,
pile depth, hole size, distance of sound source measurement) where NMFS
had access to published and unpublished DTH monitoring data. The
Generalized Linear Model routine in R Commander was used to assess the
fit of linear and non-linear multiple regression models of the data.
Model assumptions were assessed graphically and mathematically and the
best fit of models that fit statistical assumptions and retained
statistically significant covariates was chosen mathematically. The
best fit model was used to calculate the source level for the
extrapolated hole size. The calculated source level was then rounded to
the next highest integer decibel for use in this action. NMFS does not
concur that the notice of proposed authorization needs to be re-
published given that a re-published notice would utilize the same
extrapolation methodology and arrive at the same source level for DTH
installation of 48-inch piles.
Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS use a repetition
rate of 13 strikes/second and the proxy source level of 146 dB re 1
[micro]Pa2-sec at 10 m from Guan and Miner (2020) to re-estimate the
Level A harassment and shutdown zones for DTH pile installation of 12-
inch piles.
Response: NMFS did utilize a proxy source level of 146 dB re 1
[micro]Pa2-sec for DTH pile installation of 12-inch piles. NMFS does
not agree with the recommendation to use a strike rate of 13 strikes
per second as strike rates can be highly variable. While it appears
that strike rates may decrease as hole sizes become smaller, there is
no specific strike rate data available for 12-inch piles. Therefore,
NMFS used a strike rate across all DTH activities of 10 strikes per
second.
Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS require COK to
conduct sound source and sound propagation measurements of DTH pile
installation.
Response: NMFS agrees that there would be value in conducting sound
source testing on some of the piles for which DTH installation data is
not available. However, the City of Ketchikan has not budgeted for
sound source verification and propagation measurements and a
requirement of this nature would not be practicable. Therefore, NMFS
does not concur with the Commission's recommendation.
Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS employ alternate
methodologies to estimate take of harbor seals. They recommended either
basing take estimates on survey data from a local haulout location or
on observations made during a COK-sponsored rock blasting project (84
FR 36891; July 30, 2019).
Response: There are a number of ways to estimate take in the
absence of density data. NMFS based take on observed harbor seal group
size near the project area. This methodology has previously been
employed by NMFS at other locations in Ketchikan (84 FR 36891; July 30,
2019 and 85 FR 673; January 7, 2020). Applying the available haulout
data would likely overestimate take since it assumed that all 83 seals
at the haulout would be taken during each day of construction. NMFS did
use the data from the COK-sponsored rock blasting project but
interpreted the results differently than the Commission. Given that
harbor seals are known to
[[Page 12413]]
follow fishing vessels into the marina, COK and NMFS assumed that more
seals would be found in or near the harbor, while the Commission
assumed that the animals would be evenly distributed across the entire
12.5-km Level B harassment zone. Since NMFS believes seal
concentrations are likely to be greater near the harbor, we do not
concur with the Commission's recommendation.
Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS revise condition
6(b)(ix) in the final authorization to require COK to report the number
of individuals of each species detected within the Level A and B
harassment zones, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken by
Level A and B harassment, by species. The Commission recommended NMFS
include requirements that COK include in its monitoring report (1) the
estimated percentages of the Level A and B harassment zones that were
not visible, (2) an extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level A and
B harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level
A and B harassment zones and the percentages of the Level A and B
harassment zones that were not visible (i.e., extrapolated takes)
consistent with other authorizations, and (3) the total number of Level
A and B harassment takes based on both the observed and extrapolated
takes for each species.
Response: We do not fully concur with the Commission's
recommendation and do not adopt it as stated. NMFS agrees with the
recommendation to require COK to report the number of individuals of
each species detected within the harassment zones and has included this
requirement in both the proposed and final authorizations. (See
condition 6(b)(ix).) NMFS does not agree with the recommendation to
require COK to report estimates of the numbers of marine mammals taken
by Level B harassment. The Commission does not explain why it believes
this requirement is necessary, nor does it provide recommendations for
methods of generating such estimates in a manner that would lead to
credible results. NMFS does agree COK should report the estimated
percentage(s) of the Level B harassment zones that were not visible,
and has included this requirement in both the proposed and final
authorizations. (See condition 6(b)(iii).) These pieces of
information--numbers of individuals of each species detected within the
harassment zones and the estimated percentage(s) of the harassment
zones that were not visible--may be used to glean an approximate
understanding of whether COK may have exceeded the amount of take
authorized. Although the Commission does not explain its reasoning for
offering these recommendations, NMFS recognizes the basic need to
understand whether an IHA-holder may have exceeded its authorized take.
The need to accomplish this basic function of reporting does not
require that NMFS require applicants to use methods we do not have
confidence in to generate estimates of ``total take'' that cannot be
considered reliable.
Comment 6: The Commission recommended that NMFS include in the
final authorization an additional table that specifies the extents of
the Level A harassment zones that exceed the shut-down zones,
particularly for HF cetaceans and phocids.
Response: The table described by the Commission has been used very
infrequently and only in situations with there are limited pile types,
pile sizes, and/or pile installation methods employed. Such a table
would be cumbersome and unwieldy in this instance given the numerous
pile types, pile sizes and pile installation methods planned for use in
which different Level A harassment isopleths are dependent on either
varying duration or strike rate for both impact and DTH installation.
The information that the Commission desires is readily available in
Table 7 and Table 10.
Comment 7: The Commission recommended that NMFS reinforce that COK
must keep a running tally of the total Level A and B harassment takes,
both observed and extrapolated, for each species consistent with
condition 4(g) of the final authorization.
Response: The IHA indicates the number of takes authorized for each
species. We agree that COK must ensure they do not exceed authorized
takes, but do not concur with the Commission's repeated recommendations
regarding the need for NMFS to oversee IHA-holders' compliance with
issued IHAs, including the use of a ``running tally'' of takes.
Regardless of the Commission's substitution of the word ``reinforce''
for the word ``ensure,'' as compared with its prior recommendations for
other actions, compliance with the terms of an issued IHA remains the
responsibility of the IHA-holder.
Comment 8: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from
issuing a renewal for any authorization unless it is consistent with
the procedural requirements specified in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of
the MMPA.
Response: In prior responses to comments about IHA Renewals (e.g.,
84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS
has explained how the Renewal process, as implemented, is consistent
with the statutory requirements contained in section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA, provides additional efficiencies beyond the use of
abbreviated notices, and, further, promotes NMFS' goals of improving
conservation of marine mammals and increasing efficiency in the MMPA
compliance process. Therefore, we intend to continue implementing the
Renewal process.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
NMFS increased authorized take of harbor porpoise from 40 to 80 and
authorized take of minke whale from 2 to 8 based on informal comments
from the Commission. Authorized take of humpback whales was also
increased from 68 to 119 due to the daily occurrence of a single
humpback whale in Tongass Narrows after the notice of proposed IHA (85
FR 71612; November 12, 2020) had published in the Federal Register.
These changes are described in detail in the Estimated Take section.
The source level for DTH installation of 12-inch anchors was reduced
from 166.2 dB to 162 dB based on data from Guan and Miner (2020) where
18-inch piles were measured. Anchor holes for COK will be 12-inch.
Therefore, it is more accurate to use the 18-inch SL as the proxy sound
source level for 12-inch anchors compared to 30-, 36- and 48-inch piles
from Reyff & Heyvaert (2019), Reyff (2020), and Denes et al. (2019)
which were used to derive 166.2 dB SL value. Therefore, the Level B
harassment isopleth for DTH installation of 12-inch anchors was reduced
from 12,023 m to 6,310 m. In the Monitoring and Reporting section, NMFS
has added language stating that PSOs must work in rotating shifts of 4
hours and individual PSOs must not perform duties for more than 12
hours in a 24-hour period. New language has also been added requiring
PSOs to use elevated platforms at observation points to the extent
practicable.
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
[[Page 12414]]
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR
is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including
natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock
while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. Alaska SARs (Muto et al. 2020). All values presented in
Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2019 SARs (Muto et al., 2020) and draft 2020 SARs
(available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 2--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the 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, 801 139
2016).
Family Balaenidae
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Central North Pacific.. -, -,Y 10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 83 25
2006).
Minke whale..................... Balaenoptera Alaska................. -, -, N N.A................... N.A. 0
acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Gulf of Alaska, -, -, N 587 (N.A.; 587; 2012.. 5.87 1
Aleutian Islands, and
Bering Sea Transient.
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 1,354 (0.10; 896; 8.95 34
2012).
Dall's porpoise................. Phocoenoides dalli..... Alaska................. -, -, N 83,400 (0.097; N.A.; N.A. 38
1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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; 2,592 112
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.
As indicated above, all nine species (with 12 managed stocks) in
Table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we are authorizing
it.
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected
by the project, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (85 FR
71612); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status
of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these
descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized species accounts.
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
[[Page 12415]]
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 based on 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 3.
Table 3--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 (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
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) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
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.
Nine mammal species (seven cetacean and two pinniped (one otariid and
one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
planned survey activities. Of the cetacean species that may be present,
three are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete
species), two are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
delphinid and ziphiid species and the sperm whale), and two are
classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., porpoise spp.).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from pile removal activities have
the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in
the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of proposed IHA (85 FR
71602; November 10, 2020) included a discussion of the effects of
anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of
underwater noise from WSDOT's vibratory pile removal on marine mammals
and their habitat. That information and analysis is incorporated by
reference into this final IHA determination and is not repeated here;
please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 71602; November 10,
2020).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic sources (i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving or DTH
pile installation) has the potential to result in disruption of
behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some
potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily
for high frequency cetacean species and phocid pinnipeds. Auditory
injury is unlikely to occur in low-frequency and mid-frequency cetacean
species and otariid pinnipeds. The planned 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 authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the authorized take
estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of 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).
[[Page 12416]]
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 (e.g., hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for continuous (e.g.,
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
COK's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory
pile driving, DTH pile installation) and impulsive (impact pile
driving), sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
criteria 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). COK's planned activity includes the use
of impulsive (impact pile driving, DTH pile installation) and non-
impulsive (vibratory pile driving/removal, DTH pile installation)
sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 4. 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 4--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: Cell 2: LE,LF,24h:
219 dB; 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: Cell 4: LE,MF,24h:
230 dB; 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: Cell 6: LE,HF,24h:
202 dB; 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Cell 7: Lpk,flat: Cell 8: LE,PW,24h:
(Underwater). 218 dB; 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) Cell 9: Lpk,flat: Cell 10:
(Underwater). 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 219
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB. 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 planned project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., vibratory pile driving,
vibratory pile removal, impact pile driving, and DTH pile
installation).
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. 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. The actual durations
of each installation method vary depending on the type of pile, size of
the pile, and substrate characteristics (e.g. bedrock).
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 from other locations
to inform selection of representative source levels (see Table 5).
Sound source levels for vibratory installation of 30-inch steel
piles were obtained by Denes et al. (2016) during the installation of
30-inch steel pipe piles at the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal. Vibratory
removal of 30-inch piles is expected to be quieter than installation,
so this value is used as a proxy. Sound levels for vibratory
installation of 48-inch steel piles were obtained by Austin et al.
(2016) during the installation of test piles at the Port of Anchorage.
The applicant elected to conservatively employ sound source levels for
the 48-inch piles as a proxy to calculate harassment isopleths for 36-
inch piles.
Sound levels for impact installation of 30-inch steel piles were
taken from Denes et al. (2016) during the installation of piles at the
Ketchikan Ferry Terminal. Sound levels for impact installation of 48-
inch steel piles were obtained by Austin et al. (2016) during the
installation of test piles at the Port of Anchorage. Overall median
levels were not reported for peak and single strike SEL values.
Therefore, the highest values reported for peak and single strike SEL
were used. The highest levels reported were a peak of 213.2 dB re: 1
[mu]Pa at 14 m and a single strike SEL of 186.7 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa2-sec on
pile IP5 at
[[Page 12417]]
11 m (Austin et al. 2016). Sound source levels for 48-inch piles are
used as a proxy to calculate harassment isopleths for 36-inch piles.
DTH pile installation includes drilling (non-impulsive sound) and
hammering (impulsive sound) to penetrate rocky substrates (Denes et al.
2016; Denes et al. 2019; Reyff and Heyvaert 2019). DTH pile
installation was initially thought be a primarily non-impulsive noise
source. However, Denes et al.(2019) concluded from their study in
Virginia that DTH should be characterized as impulsive based on a >3 dB
difference in sound pressure level in a 0.035-second window (Southall
et al. 2007) compared to a 1-second window. Therefore, DTH pile
installation is treated as both an impulsive and non-impulsive noise
source. In order to evaluate Level A harassment, DTH pile installation
activities are evaluated according to the impulsive criteria and the
User Spreadsheet may be employed. Level B harassment isopleths are
determined by applying non-impulsive criteria and using the 120 dB
threshold which is also used for vibratory driving. This approach
ensures that the largest ranges to effect for both Level A and Level B
harassment are accounted for in the take estimation process.
The source level employed to derive Level B harassment isopleths
for DTH pile installation (socketing) of all pile sizes was derived
from the Denes et al. (2016) study at Kodiak, Alaska. The reported
median source value for drilling was determined to be 166.2 dB RMS.
For DTH anchoring of 12-inch holes, COK used a sound source level
from 18-inch piles from Guan and Miner (2020) as a proxy (146 dB SEL)
for Level A harassment calculations. For DTH installation of 30 and 36-
inch sockets, source levels from 42-inch holes from Reyff & Heyvaert
(2019), Reyff (2020), and Denes et al. (2019) were employed.
Table 5--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory Pile Removal, Vibratory Pile
Installation, Impact Pile Installation, and DTH Pile Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound source level at 10 meters
Method and pile type ------------------------------------------------ Literature source
SPL rms SPLPK SSSEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles................... 161.9 .............. .............. Denes et al. 2016.
36-and 48-inch steel piles............ 168.2 .............. .............. Austin et al. 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Hammer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch diameters..................... 195 208.5 180.7 Denes et al. 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36- and 48-inch \1\................... 198.6 213.2 \2\ 186.7 \3\ Austin et al. 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH Pile Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH Sockets (48-inch) \4\............. 166.2 .............. 168 Extrapolated from DTH
SSV studies listed
below; Denes et al.
(2016).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH Sockets (30-, 36-inch) \4\........ 166.2 194 164 Reyff & Heyvaert (2019);
Reyff (2020); Denes et
al. (2016, Denes et al.
2019).
DTH Anchors (12-inch) \5\............. 162 172 146 Guan and Miner (2020).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sound source levels for 48-inch piles are used as a proxy to calculate harassment isopleths for 36-inch
piles.
\2\ Represents maximum value measured at 14 m.
\3\ Represents maximum value measured at 11 m.
\4\ DTH drilling source levels for 24-inch piles from Denes et al. (2016) was used as a proxy for 30-inch to 48-
inch piles. SL was revised to 166.2 dB from 166 dB utilized in notice of proposed IHA to more accurately
reflect averaged results of DTH installation of 30-, 36- and 48-inch piles from Reyff & Heyvaert (2019); Reyff
(2020); Denes et al. (2019).
\5\ The pile/hole size from Guan and Miner (2020) measured 18-inches and anchor holes for COK will be 12-inches.
Therefore, it is more accurate to use the 18-inch SL as the proxy sound source level for 12-inch anchors.
SS SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square.
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 Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the
best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways
to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address
the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as impact
driving, vibratory driving and DTH pile installation example from
project, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a
marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would incur PTS.
Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet (Table 6) and the resulting
isopleths are reported below (Table 7). Level A harassment thresholds
for impulsive sound sources (impact pile driving, DTH pile
installation) 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 effective Level A harassment
isopleth. Note that the peak SPL for DTH installation of 48-inch piles
is unknown as no sound source verification testing has been conducted
[[Page 12418]]
on piles of that size. The single strike SEL was extrapolated using
data points measured for smaller piles during DTH installation. 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 DTH sockets
driver Vibratory pile Impact pile ----------------------------------
(installation/ driver Impact pile driver (36 and DTH anchor (12-
Equipment type removal of 30- (installation of driver (30-inch 48-inch steel inch steel
inch steel 36 and 48-inch steel piles) piles) 30-, 36-in \1\ 48-in piles) \2\
piles) steel piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level................. 161.9 RMS....... 168.2 RMS....... 180.7 SS SEL.... 186.7 SS SEL.... 164 SS SEL/194 168 SS SEL..... 146 SS SEL/172
SPLpk. SPLpk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting Factor Adjustment 2.5............. 2.5............. 2............... 2............... 2 2.
(kHz).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Activity duration (time) (a) Up to 6 hrs (a) Up to 6 hrs (a) 1-10 minutes (a) 1-10 minutes (a) Up to 3 hrs (a) Up to 2 hrs (a) Up to 6 hrs
within 24 hours. OR >6-8 hrs(c) OR >6-8 hrs (c) (b) Up to 500 (b) Up to 500 OR >3-6 hrs. OR >2-3 hrs OR OR >6-8 hrs.
1. 1. strikes (c) 1. strikes (c) 1. >3-4 hrs.
(b) Number of strikes per ................ ................ (a) >10-20 (a) >10-20 (b) 10 strike/ (b) 10 strike/ (b) 10 strikes/
pile (impact) OR number of minutes. minutes. sec. sec. sec.
strikes per second (DTH). (b) 501-1,000 (b) 501-1,000
strikes (c) 1. strikes (c) 1.
(c) Number of piles per day.. ................ ................ (a) >20-30 (a) >20-30 (c) 1.......... (c) 1.......... (c) 1.
minutes (b) minutes (b)
1,001-1,500 1,001-1,500
strikes (c) 1. strikes (c) 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propagation (xLogR).......... 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15.............. 15 15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance of source level 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 11.............. 10 10.
measurement (meters).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DTH drilling source levels for 42-inch piles from Reyff and Heyvaert (2019), (Reyff 2020), and Denes et al. (2019) were used as a proxy for 30- and
36-inch piles.
\2\ DTH drilling source levels for 18-inch piles from Guan and Miner (2020) were used as a proxy for 12-inch piles.
Table 7--Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths (m) During Vibratory Pile Installation/Removal, Impact Installation and DTH Pile
Installation for Each Hearing Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset isopleth (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Daily duration Cetaceans Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency Mid-frequency High-frequency Phocid Otariid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch Vibratory (Installation or Removal)... Up to 6 hours.................... 25.9 2.3 38.3 15.7 1.1
7 to 8 hours..................... 31.4 2.8 46.4 19.1 1.3
36- and 48-inch Vibratory..................... Up to 6 hours.................... 68.1 6 100.7 41.4 2.9
7 to 8 hours..................... 82.5 7.3 122 50.1 3.5
Down-the-Hole Socket (30-, 36-inch)........... Up to 3 hours.................... 1,225.6 43.6 1,459.9 655.9 47.8
4 to 6 hours..................... 1,945.5 69.3 2,317.4 1,041.2 75.8
Down-the-Hole Socket (48-inch)................ Up to 2.......................... 1,728.3 61.5 2,058.7 924.9 67.3
>2 to 3 hours.................... 2,264.8 80.5 2,697.7 1,212 88.2
>3 to 4 hours.................... 2,743.6 97.6 3,268 1,468.2 106.9
Down the Hole Anchor (12-inch)................ Up to 6 hours.................... 122.8 4.4 146.2 65.7 4.8
7 to 8 hours..................... 148.7 5.3 177.1 79.6 5.8
30-inch Diesel Impact......................... Up to 500 strikes (1-10 minutes). 442 15.7 526.4 236.5 17.2
501-1,000 strikes (11-20 minutes) 701.6 25 835.7 375.4 27.3
1,001-1,500 strikes (21-30 919.3 32.7 1,095 492 35.8
minutes).
36- and 48-inch Diesel Impact................. Up to 500 strikes (1-10 minutes). 1,221.2 43.4 1,454.6 653.5 47.9
501-1,000 strikes (11-20 minutes) 1,938.5 68.9 2,309 1,037.4 75.5
[[Page 12419]]
1,001-1,500 strikes (21-30 2,540.1 90.3 3,025.7 1,359.4 99
minutes).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 COK's planned activity.
Using the practical spreading model, COK 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 of 36 and 48-inch diameter piles. Other
activities, including rock anchoring and impact pile driving, have
smaller Level B harassment zones. All Level B harassment isopleths are
reported in Table 8 below. It should be noted that based on the
geography of Tongass Narrows and the surrounding islands, sound will
not reach the full distance of the Level B harassment isopleth. The
largest Level B Harassment isopleth will be truncated by land masses at
approximately 12,500 m to the southeast and approximately 3,590 m
northwest of the project area. Constraining land masses include
Revillagigedo Island, Gravina Island, Pennock Island and Spire Island.
Table 8--Calculated Level B Harassment Isopleths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behavioral
disturbance
Source isopleth (m)
120 dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch Vibratory (Installation or Removal)............. 6,213
36- and 48-inch Vibratory............................... 16,343
DTH installation \1\ (Socket)........................... 12,023
DTH installation (anchor) \2\........................... 6,310
30-inch Diesel Impact................................... 2,154
36- and 48-inch Diesel Impact........................... 3,744
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SL of 166.2 dB was used for socket installation instead of 166 as
used in notice of proposed IHA.
\2\ SL of 162 dB (Guan and Miner 2020) was used for 12-inch anchor
installation.
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations. Note that there is no density data for any of the species
near the Berth III mooring dolphin project area, therefore the take
estimate is informed by qualitative data.
The number of marine mammals that may be exposed to harassment
thresholds is calculated by estimating the likelihood of a marine
mammal being present within a harassment zone during the associated
activities. Estimated marine mammal abundance is determined by
reviewing local and regional reports, surveys, permits and observations
of abundance and frequency near the planned project action. For
example, for species that are common with the potential to occur daily,
the take calculations are based on the group size multiplied by the
projected number of days of underwater noise activities. For species
that are less common, take estimates are based on group size multiplied
by the frequency (e.g. weekly, monthly). The estimated number of takes
are based upon reasonable ranges from the best information currently
available for these species near the project area.
Authorization of Level A harassment takes was requested by COK for
harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise. Harbor seals are
habituated to fishing vessels and may follow vessels that enter the
marina. Dall's and harbor porpoises' small size and speed make it
possible that these animals could occur within the Level A harassment
zones and potentially incur injury prior to detection.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales occur frequently in Tongass Narrows and the
adjacent Clarence Strait during summer and fall months to feed, but are
less common during winter and spring. The average group size during the
fall surveys was two whales according to Dalheim et al. (2009). Local
reports of humpback whale group size in Tongass Narrows are similar,
with the typical size being between 1 and 3. During the spring months,
humpback whales tend to congregate in areas outside of the Ketchikan
area, such as Lynn Canal and Fredrick Sound. Therefore, it is assumed
that the occurrence of humpback whales in the project area is two
individuals twice per week throughout the project. A group size of two
was also assumed in the Biological Opinion provided to the US Army Corp
of Engineers (USACE) for the Alaska Department of Transportation &
Public Ferries (ADOT&PF) Berth improvement project in Tongass Narrows
(NMFS 2019).
In the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 71612; November 12, 2020) NMFS
estimated that up to 2 individuals could be exposed to underwater noise
twice a week during the 17 weeks of the project's in-water work, for a
total of 68 incidents of take from the Central North Pacific stock.
Wade et al. (2016) determined that 6.1 percent of all humpback whales
in Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia were members of the
Mexico DPS, while all others are assumed to be members of the Hawaii
DPS. Therefore, NMFS had proposed to authorize 68 incidents of take by
Level B harassment from the Central North Pacific Stock with 64
[[Page 12420]]
instances from the Hawaii DPS and four instances from the endangered
Mexico DPS. However, NMFS has increased authorized take by Level B
harassment due to the daily presence of a single humpback whale close
to Ketchikan during the month of November (USA Today, December 1,
2020). NMFS assumed that one whale would be present in the project area
daily throughout the duration of the project. Based on the recent
occurrence information, we estimate that one humpback whale will be
within the Level B harassment zone daily for 17 weeks.
Therefore:
(7 x 17) = 119 exposures of Central North Pacific stock humpback whales
to Level B harassment
As described above, an estimated 6.1 percent of humpback whales in
Southeast Alaska are from the Mexico DPS (Wade et al. 2016). Therefore,
of the 119 animals potentially exposed to Level B harassment due to
Berth III pile driving activities, 6.1 percent or 7 of these 119
exposures would be ESA-listed Mexico DPS humpback whales, and the
remaining 112 would most likely from the non-listed Hawaii DPS.
Take by Level A harassment is not expected for humpback whales
because of the expected effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation
measures. While calculated Level A harassment zones are up to 2,800 m,
multiple protected species observers (PSOs) will monitoring Tongass
Narrows which is < less than 600 m in width and represents a much
smaller effective Level A harassment zone. Humpbacks are usually
readily visible, therefore, shutdown measures can be implemented prior
to any humpback whales incurring PTS within Level A harassment zones.
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lion abundance in the Tongass Narrows area is not well
known and no systematic studies of Steller sea lions have been
conducted in or near the Tongass Narrows area. However, sea lions are
known to occur in the Tongass Narrows area throughout the year with
peak numbers March through September (ADOT 2019). Sea lions may be
present during salmon and herring runs and are known to visit
hatcheries and fish processing facilities in the vicinity.
Group sizes are generally 6 to 10 individuals (Freitag 2017) but
have been reported to reach 80 animals (Freitag 2017). COK assumed one
large group of 10 individuals could be present each day in the project
vicinity based on HDR (2019) and Freitag (2017) (as cited in 83 FR
22009; May 11, 2018). NMFS agrees that this daily estimate is
appropriate and therefore has authorized up to 1,200 takes by Level B
harassment.
Take by Level A harassment is not expected for Steller sea lions
because of the relatively small Level A harassment zones for otariids
(Table 7) and the expected effectiveness of the monitoring and
mitigation measures discussed below.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seal densities in the Tongass Narrows area are not well
known. No systematic studies of harbor seals have been conducted in or
near Tongass Narrows. Seals are known to occur year-round with little
seasonal variation in abundance (Freitag 2017) and local experts
estimate that there are about 1 to 3 harbor seals in Tongass Narrows
every day, in addition to those that congregate near the seafood
processing plants and fish hatcheries. COK conducted pinnacle rock
blasting in December 2019 and January 2020 near the vicinity of the
planned project and recorded a total of 21 harbor seal sightings of 24
individuals over 76.2 hours of pre- and post-blast monitoring
(Sitkiewicz 2020). Harbor seals were observed in groups ranging from 1-
3 animals throughout the 0.70-mile (1.12-kilometer) observation zone.
Based on this knowledge, COK assumed an average group size in Tongass
Narrows of three individuals. They anticipated that three groups of
three harbor seals per group could be exposed to project-related
underwater noise each day for 120 days of in-water work. Given that
harbor seals are known to follow fishing vessels into the marina and
may be difficult to detect, COK assumed that one group of three seals
could be taken by Level A harassment daily, resulting in 360 Level A
harassment takes. NMFS agreed with these assumptions and, therefore,
has authorized 720 takes by Level B harassment and 360 takes by Level A
harassment.
Dall's Porpoise
The mean group size of Dall's porpoise in Southeast Alaska is
estimated at approximately three individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2009;
Jefferson et al., 2019). However, in the Ketchikan vicinity, Dall's
porpoises are reported to typically occur in groups of 10-15 animals,
with an estimated maximum group size of 20 animals (Freitag 2017, as
cited in 83 FR 22009, May 11, 2018). Overall, sightings of Dall's
porpoise are infrequent near Ketchikan, but they could be present on
any given day during the construction period.
COK assumed that a maximum group size of 20 Dall's porpoise could
occur in the project area each month. NMFS concurs with this assessment
and has authorized 80 takes of Dall's porpoise over the anticipated
four-month project duration.
Given the large size of the Level A harassment zone associated with
impact pile driving for high-frequency cetaceans, it is possible Dall's
porpoises may enter the Level A harassment zone undetected. Therefore,
NMFS has authorized a total of 60 takes of Dall's porpoise by Level B
harassment and 20 takes by Level A harassment over the course of the
project.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, occurrence estimates
are not dependent on season. Freitag (2017 as cited in 83 FR 37473;
August 1, 2018) 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). Based on this previous information from the Ketchikan
Berth IV Expansion project and the AKDOT Tongass Narrows project, COK
estimated that two groups of five harbor porpoise may enter the Tongass
Narrows twice per month. NMFS agrees with this estimate and, therefore,
has authorized 80 takes of harbor porpoise during the duration of the
project.
Given that harbor porpoises are stealthy, having no visible blow
and a low profile in the water making the species difficult for
monitors to detect (Dahlheim et al. 2015), COK requested that a total
of 20 takes of harbor porpoises by Level A harassment be authorized.
Therefore, NMFS has authorized 20 takes of harbor porpoise by Level A
harassment and 60 takes by Level B harassment. The number of proposed
takes in the proposed IHA (40) was incorrect due to a mathematical
error.
Killer Whale
Typical pod sizes observed within the project vicinity range from 1
to 10 animals. COK assumed that the frequency of killer whales passing
through the action area is estimated to be once per month and also
conservatively assumed a pod size of 10.
Therefore, NMFS has authorized 40 takes of killer whales by Level B
harassment.
[[Page 12421]]
Take by Level A harassment is not expected for killer whales
because of the small Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans and the expected effectiveness of the monitoring and
mitigation measures discussed below.
Gray Whale
Gray whales have not been reported within the Tongass Narrows;
however, their presence cannot be entirely discounted. Since the
largest Level B harassment zone extends beyond Tongass Narrows, COK
assumed that up to two gray whales may be taken per month. Therefore,
NMFS has authorized up to 8 takes of gray whale by Level B harassment.
Due to the unlikely occurrence of gray whales and the ability to
shut down pile driving activities prior to a whale entering the Level A
harassment zone, no Level A harassment takes of gray whales were
requested or are authorized.
Minke Whale
There are no known occurrences of minke whales within the project
area although they may be present in Tongass Narrows and Clarence
Strait year-round. Their abundance throughout Southeast Alaska is low.
However, minke whales are distributed throughout a wide variety of
habitats and could occur near the project area. Minke whales are
generally sighted as individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
NMFS had proposed to authorize two minke whale takes by Level B
harassment in the proposed IHA. However, based on an informal comment
from the Commission, NMFS has increased to eight the authorized take of
minke whales (two takes per month) since they are at least if not more
likely to occur in Tongass Narrows compared to gray whales, which have
never been observed in Tongass Narrows. No Level A harassment takes of
minke whales are anticipated due to the very limited occurrence of
minke whales and the ability to shut down pile driving activities prior
to a whale entering the Level A harassment zone.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins have not been reported within the
Tongass Narrows; however, the dolphin is within its range and thus its
presence cannot be discounted. Pacific white-sided dolphin group sizes
generally range from between 20 and 164 animals. For the purposes of
this assessment, COK assumed one group of 30 dolphins may be present
within the Level B harassment zone every tenth day, or about every
other week, similar to what was estimated for a prior IHA (84 FR 36891;
July 30, 2019). Therefore, NMFS has authorized 360 takes of Pacific
white-sided dolphin by Level B harassment.
No Level A takes are expected due to the relatively small size of
Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans which can be
readily monitored.
Table 9 below summarizes the authorized take for all the species
described above as a percentage of stock abundance.
Table 9--Authorized Take by Level A and B Harassment and as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock Percent of
Species Level B takes Level A takes abundance stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale \1\.............................. 119 N/A 10,103 1.18
Steller sea lion eDPS........................... 1,200 N/A 43,201 2.78
Harbor seal..................................... 720 360 27,659 3.90
Dall's porpoise................................. 60 20 83,400 0.09
Harbor porpoise................................. 60 20 1,354 5.90
Killer whale \2\
AK resident................................. 40 N/A 2,347 1.70
West coast transient........................ .............. .............. 243 16.46
Northern resident........................... .............. .............. 302 13.25
Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering .............. .............. 587 6.81
Sea transient..............................
Gray whale...................................... 8 N/A 26,960 0.03
Pacific white-sided Dolphin..................... 360 N/A 26,880 1.34
Minke whale..................................... 8 N/A N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes that 6.1 percent of humpback whales exposed are members of the Mexico DPS (Wade et al. 2016).
Distribution of take by ESA status is 112 Level B takes for Hawaii DPS and 7 Level B take for Mexico DPS.
\2\ These percentages assume all takes come from the same killer whale stock, thus the percentage should be
adjusted down if multiple stocks are actually affected.
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
[[Page 12422]]
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 required for this IHA:
For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving,
if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and
vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could include
the following activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile
location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane
(i.e., stabbing the pile);
Briefings must be conducted between construction
supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to
the start of all pile driving activity and when new personnel join the
work, to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;
For those marine mammals for which take has not been
authorized, in-water pile installation and removal will shut down
immediately if such species are observed within or entering the Level A
or Level B harassment zone; and
If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized
species, pile installation and removal will be stopped as these species
approach the Level A or Level B harassment zone to avoid additional
take.
COK is required to implement all mitigation measures
described in the biological opinion (issued on DATE).
The following mitigation measures would apply to COK's in-water
construction activities.
Establishment of Shutdown Zones--COK will establish
shutdown zones for all pile driving and removal activities. The purpose
of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown
of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones
will vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group
(Table 10). Due to sediment characteristics and variation in pile
sizes, COK does not know how much time will be required for vibratory
driving/removal and DTH installation at each pile or how many strikes
will be required for impact installation. Given this uncertainty, COK
will utilize a tiered system to identify and monitor appropriate
shutdown zones based on activity duration or the number of strikes
required for pile installation or removal. During vibratory driving/
removal and DTH pile installation, the shutdown zone size will
initially be set at the lowest tier, which represents the least amount
of active installation/removal time. Shutdown zones will be expanded to
the next largest zone after Tier 1 time period has elapsed. For those
activities with three specified tiers (i.e., impact driving, DTH
socketing), the shutdown zone will be expanded to the largest isopleths
identified in Tier 3 if the activity extends beyond the Tier 2 active
time period. During impact driving, the shutdown zones associated with
0-500 strikes will be monitored until 500 strikes have occurred. The
shutdown zones will increase to the next tier between 501-1,000
strikes. After 1,000 strikes the shutdown zones will subsequently be
increased to the largest zone sizes.
If a marine mammal is entering or is observed within an
established shutdown zone, pile driving must be halted or delayed. Pile
driving may not commence or resume until either the animal has
voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone
or 15 minutes have passed without subsequent detections of small
cetaceans and pinnipeds; or 30 minutes have passed without subsequent
detections of large cetaceans.
The placement of PSOs during all pile driving and removal
activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and Reporting
section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible during
pile installation. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such
that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be
visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal must be
delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown
zone could be detected.
PSOs--COK will employ PSOs who will be able to fully
monitor Level A harassment zones. Placement of PSOs will allow
observation of marine mammals within the large segments of the Level B
harassment zones. However, due to the large size of some of the Level B
harassment zones (Table 8), PSOs will not be able to effectively
observe the entire zone.
Pre-activity Monitoring--Prior to the start of daily in-
water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving/
removal of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown
and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will
be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within
the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed
within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal
has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. When a
marine mammal for which take is authorized is present in the harassment
zone, activities may begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes,
the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones will commence.
Soft Start--Soft-start procedures are believed to provide
additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or
giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer
operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, COK will be
required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at
reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period. This
procedure will be conducted three times before impact pile driving
begins. Soft start will be implemented at the start of each day's
impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile
driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
Scheduling--Pile driving or removal activities must occur
during daylight hours. If poor environmental conditions restrict
visibility of the shutdown zones (e.g., from excessive wind or fog,
high Beaufort state), pile installation may not be initiated. Work that
has begun with a fully cleared Level B harassment zone may continue
during inclement weather (e.g., fog, heavy rain) or periods of limited
visibility.
[[Page 12423]]
Table 10--Shutdown and Monitoring Zones for Each Driving/Removal Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High
frequency Phocid Otariid
Low frequency Mid frequency shutdown area pinniped pinniped Level B
Pile size cetacean cetacean (m) (harbor shutdown area shutdown area harassment
shutdown area shutdown area porpoise, (m) (harbor (m) (steller zone (m)
(m) (m) dall's seal) sea lion)
porpoise) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal:
--------------------------------
30-inch piles up to 8 hrs............................... 40 10 50 10 6,300
36- and 48-inch piles up to 8 hrs....................... 90 10 50 10 \1\ 12,500
--------------------------------
Impact Pile Driving:
30-inch piles up to 500 strikes......................... 500 40 50 10 40 2,200
30-inch piles 501 to 1,000 strikes...................... 700
30-inch piles 1,001 to 1,500 strikes.................... 1,000
36- and 48-inch piles up to 500 strikes................. 1,300 50 50 10 50 3,800
36- and 48-inch piles 501 to 1,000 strikes.............. 2,000 70 80
36- and 48-inch piles 1,001 to 1,500 strikes............ 2,600 90 100
DTH Socket:
30-, 36-inch piles up to 3 hrs.......................... 1,300 50 50 10 50 12,500
30-, 36-inch piles 3 hrs--6 hrs......................... 2,000 70
48-inch piles up to 2 hours............................. 1,750 65 70
48-inch piles >2 to 3 hrs............................... 2,300 85 100
48-inch piles >3 to 4 hours............................. 2,750 100 110
DTH Anchor:
--------------------------------
12-inch hole up to 8 hours.............................. 150 10 50 10 6,350
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents largest Level B Harassment isopleth. Note that isopleth is truncated by land masses at 12,500 meters.
To minimize impacts to marine mammals and their prey vibratory
installation will be used as the primary methods of pile installation.
Impact driving will be minimized and used only as needed to seat the
pile in its final position or to penetrate material that is too dense
for a vibratory hammer.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, we have determined that the
required 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.
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
planned 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.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal must be
conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the
following:
Independent PSOs (i.e., not construction personnel) who
have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;
At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the
duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization;
Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological
science or related field) or training for experience;
Where a team of two or more PSOs are required, a lead
observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer
during construction;
COK must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae for approval by NMFS
prior to the onset of pile driving;
[[Page 12424]]
PSOs must work in rotating shifts of 4 hours and
individual PSOs must not perform duties for more than 12 hours in a 24-
hour period; and
PSOs must use elevated platforms at observation points to
the extent practicable.
PSOs should have the following additional qualifications:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation
of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required);
and marine mammal behavior; and
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary.
A minimum of three onshore observers will be stationed along
Tongass Narrows at locations that provide optimal visual coverage for
shutdown and monitoring zones. To maximize the visual coverage of
shutdown and monitoring zones, observers will use elevated platforms at
observation points to the extent practicable. Observers will be in
contact with each other via two-way radio and with a cellular phone
used as back-up communications. The primary purpose of this observer is
to implement the shutdown zones and monitor the Level B harassment
zones. PSOs must be positioned in order to focus on monitoring these
zones. PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting
scopes, and would use a handheld global positioning system (GPS) or
range-finder device to verify the distance to each sighting from the
project site.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after pile driving/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 or remove a single pile or
series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile
driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
Reporting
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of 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) and estimated observable distance (if less than the harassment
zone distance).
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 and estimated time spent
within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was
active;
Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by
month as appropriate) detected within the harassment zones,;
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
Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a
separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above).
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, the IHA-holder shall report
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (301-427-8401),
NMFS and to the Alaska regional stranding coordinator (907-586-7209) as
soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the
specified activity, the IHA-holder must immediately cease the specified
activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the
incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are
appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-
holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
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
[[Page 12425]]
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).
Vibratory pile removal, vibratory pile driving, impact pile
driving, and DTH pile installation have the potential to disturb or
displace marine mammals. Specifically, these planned project activities
may result in take, in the form of Level A harassment and Level B
harassment. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in
the ensonified zone when these activities are underway. No mortality is
anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals.
The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 7 are based upon
an animal exposed to vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, and
DTH pile installation for periods of time ranging from 30 minutes for
impact driving, up to 8 hours for vibratory driving, up to 6 hours for
DTH socketing and 8 hours for DTH anchoring. Exposures of this length
are unlikely for vibratory driving/removal and DTH pile installation
scenarios given marine mammal movement throughout the area. Even during
impact driving scenarios, an animal exposed to the accumulated sound
energy would likely experience only limited PTS at the 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. Given that
the installation of 12 permanent piles and eight temporary piles would
occur over 4 months, any harassment would be temporary and
intermittent. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B
harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as
monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to
reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time,
or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (Southall et
al. 2007, ABR 2016). Most likely, individuals will simply move away
from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of
pile driving. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to
subside quickly when the exposures cease.
The potential for harassment is minimized through the
implementation of the required mitigation measures. During all impact
driving, implementation of soft start procedures and monitoring of
established shutdown zones shall be required, significantly reducing
any possibility of injury. Given sufficient notice through use of soft
start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away
from an irritating sound source prior to it becoming potentially
injurious. To reduce the severity of in-water noise, vibratory pile
driving will be the primary installation method for the project and
impact hammers will only be used to seat pile tips into fractured
bedrock ahead of the hammering operations or if material is encountered
that is too dense to penetrate with a vibratory hammer.
The planned project is located within an active marine commercial
and industrial area with no known pinniped haulouts or rookeries near
the project area. While construction of mooring dolphins at Berth III
would have some permanent removal of habitat available to marine
mammals, the area lost is relatively small and not of particular
importance to any marine mammals.
Any impacts on prey that would occur during in-water construction
would have at most short-terms effects on foraging of individual marine
mammals, and likely no effect on the populations of marine mammals as a
whole. Therefore, effects on marine mammal prey during the construction
are expected to be minimal and, therefore, are unlikely to cause
substantial effects on marine mammals at the individual or population
level.
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 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.
For all species except humpback whales, there are no known BIAs
near the project zone that would be impacted by COK's planned
activities. For humpback whales, the whole of Southeast Alaska is a
seasonal BIA from spring through late fall (Ferguson et al., 2015).
However, Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait are not important portions
of this habitat due to development and human presence. Tongass Narrows
is also a small passageway and represents a very small portion of the
total available habitat for humpback whales. Finally, there is no ESA-
designated critical habitat for humpback whales.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our 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 limited and of low
degree;
Mitigation measures such as employing vibratory driving to
the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts, and shut downs will be
implemented;
Impacts to marine mammal habitat are anticipated to be
minimal;
The project area is located in an industrialized and
commercial marina;
The project area does not include any rookeries, or known
areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction;
and
The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist
of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior.
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 required monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be
[[Page 12426]]
taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the
take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other
qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the
temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The number of instances of take for each species or stock
authorized to be taken as a result of this project is included in Table
9. Our analysis shows that less than one-third of the best available
population abundance estimate of each species or stock could be taken
by harassment. The number of animals authorized to be taken for each
authorized stock would be considered small relative to the relevant
stock's abundances even if each estimated taking occurred to a new
individual, which is an unlikely scenario.
The west coast transient stock of killer whales represents the
highest percentage of a single stock (<17 percent) that is authorized
take. This take percentage also assumes that all authorized killer
whale takes would be from this stock, which is highly unlikely given
the expansive range of the stock.
A lack of an accepted stock abundance value for the Alaska stock of
minke whale did not allow for the calculation of an expected percentage
of the population that would be affected. The most relevant estimate of
partial stock abundance is 1,232 minke whales in coastal waters of the
Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Zerbini et al., 2006). Given
that two takes by Level B harassment are authorized for the stock,
comparison to the best estimate of stock abundance shows less than 0.2
percent of the stock is expected to be impacted.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity
(including the required mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.
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.
Alaska Native hunters in the Ketchikan vicinity do not
traditionally harvest cetaceans (Muto et al. 2020). Harbor seals are
the most commonly targeted marine mammal that is hunted by Alaska
Native subsistence hunters within the Ketchikan area. In 2012 an
estimated 595 harbor seals were taken for subsistence uses, with 22 of
those occurring in Ketchikan (Wolfe et al. 2012). This is the most
recent data available. The harbor seal harvest per capita in both
communities was low, at 0.02 for Ketchikan. ADF&G subsistence data for
Southeast Alaska shows that from 1992 through 2008, plus 2012, from
zero to 19 Steller sea lions were taken by Alaska Native hunters per
year with typical harvest years ranging from zero to five animals
(Wolfe et al. 2013) In 2012, it is estimated nine sea lions were taken
in all of Southeast Alaska and only from Hoonah and Sitka. There are no
known haulout locations in the project area. Both the harbor seal and
the Steller sea lion may be temporarily displaced from the action area.
However, neither the local population nor any individual pinnipeds are
likely to be adversely impacted by the planned action beyond noise-
induced harassment or slight injury. The planned project is anticipated
to have no long-term impact on Steller sea lion or harbor seal
populations, or their habitat no long term impacts on the availability
of marine mammals for subsistence uses is anticipated.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the required mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from COK's planned
activities.
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 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 determined that the issuance of the
IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS Office of Protected Resources consults internally whenever we
propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species, in this
case with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office.
There is one marine mammal species (Mexico DPS humpback whale) with
confirmed occurrence in the project area that is listed as endangered
under the ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources
Division issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on the
issuance of an IHA to the City of Ketchikan under section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The
Biological Opinion concluded that the issuance of an IHA to COK is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Mexico DPS humpback
whales or adversely modify critical habitat because none exists in the
area.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to the City of Ketchikan for in-water
construction activities associated with the Berth III Expansion Project
in Ketchikan, Alaska between October 1, 2021 and September 30, 2022,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: February 26, 2021.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-04368 Filed 3-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
