Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ferry Berth Improvements in Tongass Narrows in Ketchikan, Alaska, 5980-6015 [2022-02035]
Download as PDF
5980
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XB709]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Ferry Berth
Improvements in Tongass Narrows in
Ketchikan, Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT) for an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) to take marine
mammals incidental to the construction
of four ferry berth facilities in Tongass
Narrows in Ketchikan, Alaska: The
Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility,
the Gravina Freight Facility, the Revilla
New Ferry Berth, and the Gravina Island
Shuttle Ferry Berth Facility. Pursuant to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an IHA to
incidentally take marine mammals
during the specified activities. NMFS is
also requesting comments on a possible
one-time, one-year renewal that could
be issued under certain circumstances
and if all requirements are met, as
described in Request for Public
Comments at the end of this notice.
NMFS will consider public comments
prior to making any final decision on
the issuance of the requested MMPA
authorizations and agency responses
will be summarized in the final notice
of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than March 4, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Written
comments should be submitted via
email to ITP.Davis@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leah Davis, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list
of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case
of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
IHA) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On August 19, 2021, NMFS received
a request from the ADOT for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to the
construction of two ferry berth facilities
in Tongass Narrows in Ketchikan,
Alaska: The Gravina Airport Ferry
Layup Facility and the Gravina Freight
Facility. On December 17, 2021 we
received a revised request that included
additional work components associated
with the Revilla New Ferry Berth and
Upland Improvements and the New
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth and
Related Terminal Improvements in the
same region. The application was
deemed adequate and complete on
January 4, 2022. ADOT’s request is for
take of a small number of eight species
of marine mammals, by Level B
harassment and Level A harassment. Of
those eight species, five (Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus), harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardii), harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall’s
porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) and
minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata)) may also be taken by
Level A harassment. Neither the ADOT
nor NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued two
consecutive IHAs and a Renewal IHA to
ADOT for this work (85 FR 673, January
7, 2020; 86 FR 23938, May 05, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
ADOT complied with all the
requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the
previous IHAs and information
regarding their monitoring results may
be found in the Description of Marine
Mammals in the Area of Specified
Activities and Marine Mammal
Occurrence and Take Calculation and
Estimation sections. An IHA for the first
phase of construction of the KetchikanGravina Access Project was issued to
ADOT on December 20, 2019 (85 FR
673, January 7, 2020). Complete
construction of two of those
components, the Revilla New Ferry
Berth and Upland Improvements and
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth
Facility/Related Terminal
Improvements, did not occur within the
timeframe authorized by the Phase 1
IHA and will not be finished before the
expiration of the subsequent one-year
renewal (86 FR 23938, May 05, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
Therefore, ADOT is requesting a new
IHA for incidental take associated with
the continued marine construction of
these facilities. This proposed IHA
would be valid for one year.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
ADOT is making improvements to
existing ferry berths and constructing
new ferry berths on Gravina Island and
Revillagigedo (Revilla) Island in
Tongass Narrows, near Ketchikan in
southeast Alaska (Figure 1). These ferry
facilities provide the only public access
between the city of Ketchikan, AK on
Revilla Island, and the Ketchikan
International Airport on Gravina Island
(Figure 1). The project’s proposed
activities that have the potential to take
marine mammals, by Level A
harassment and Level B harassment,
include vibratory and impact pile
driving, down-the-hole (DTH)
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
5981
operations for pile installation (rock
socketing of piles and tension anchors
to secure piles), and vibratory pile
removal. The marine construction
associated with the proposed activities
is planned to occur over 91 nonconsecutive days over one year
beginning March 2022.
Improvement and construction of
facilities is important to provide reliable
access to the airport and facilitate
growth and development in the region.
Some of the existing ferry facilities are
aging and periodically out-of-service for
repairs or maintenance, and this project
would provide redundant ferry berths to
increase reliability. Ketchikan is
Alaska’s fifth largest city, with a
population of approximately 8,125
(DCCED 2017), and has numerous
marine facilities including fishing
infrastructure, cruise and ferry
terminals, and shipyards.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Dates and Duration
In-water construction is scheduled to
begin on March 1, 2022, upon
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
expiration of the current Phase I IHA (86
FR 23938; May 5, 2021). ADOT
anticipates that construction would
occur during daylight hours only with
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
in-water construction occurring 6 days
per week. ADOT anticipates that the
project would require approximately 91
days of pile installation and removal
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
EN02FE22.000
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
5982
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
over the course of 7 or 8 months.
Although it is anticipated that the
project would be completed sooner,
ADOT requests that the IHA be valid for
a full year, from March 1, 2022 to
February 28, 2023, to accommodate
scheduling unknowns or delays.
ADOT plans to implement the
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Conservation Recommendations
developed by NMFS. No in-water work
would occur between March 1 and June
15 for three project components: The
Revilla New Ferry Berth and Upland
Improvements, Gravina Airport Ferry
Layup Facility, and Revilla Refurbish
Existing Ferry Berth Facility.
Specific Geographic Region
The proposed construction project is
located in Ketchikan, Alaska (Figure 1).
Improvements to the Gravina Airport
Ferry Layup Facility construction would
occur in the same location as the
existing layup dock facility. The new
Gravina Freight Facility would be
constructed in the same location as the
existing barge offload facility. The New
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth
construction would occur slightly North
of the Airport Ferry Layup Facility.
Improvements and construction on
Revilla Island would occur
approximately 4 kilometers (km; 2.5
miles (mi)) north of downtown
Ketchikan. The new Revilla Island
Airport Shuttle Ferry Berth would be
constructed immediately adjacent to the
existing Revilla Island Ferry Berth.
Tongass Narrows is an approximately
13-mile-long, north-south-oriented
marine channel situated between
Revilla Island to the east and Gravina
Island to the west. In the vicinity of the
proposed project, Tongass Narrows is as
little as 300 meters (m; 984 feet; ft)
wide. Tongass Narrows is generally
characterized by strong tidal currents
and by steep bedrock or coarse gravelcobble-boulder shoreline. Lower
intertidal and shallow subtidal areas are
often sandy or mixed gravel, sand, and
shell, with varied amounts of silt. At
other areas, however, such as at rocky
points and along the northwestern shore
of Pennock Island (which is located in
the south end of Tongass Narrows,
between Gravina and Revilla Islands),
bedrock slopes steeply to subtidal
depths. Subtidal habitats are a mix of
bedrock outcrops or ledges, bouldercobble slopes, and, where lower slopes
permit, sandy gravel bottoms, often
mixed with significant amounts of shell
debris, similar to intertidal habitats.
Several small natural coves and areas
protected by constructed breakwaters
provide wave and current protection for
marine habitats with sand or gravel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
bottoms with some areas of eelgrass
(Zostera marina) beds. Extensive areas
of riprap bank protection and fill occur
along the northeastern shoreline of the
City of Ketchikan. Construction of
numerous buildings and docks on
pilings over the intertidal and shallow
subtidal zone has significantly modified
the shorelines in these areas. Shoreline
protection activities have similarly
modified approximately 1 mile of the
shoreline of Gravina Island in the
vicinity of the airport and airport ferry
terminal.
Water depths reach approximately 49
m (160 ft) in the middle of the Tongass
Narrows between the airport and town,
but generally do not exceed 18 m (60 ft)
where piles would be installed. The
channel bottom slopes at about 2:1
(horizontal: vertical) from opposite
shores. Geological conditions in the
vicinity of the project were recently
evaluated (CH2M 2018). The substrate
consists of approximately 18 to 23 m (60
to 75 ft) of very loose to very dense
granular deltaic or alluvial sand and
gravel. At approximately 18 to 23 m (60
to 75 ft) below the mudline, the
substrate transitions to phyllite bedrock
(CH2M 2018). Pile installation would
occur in waters ranging in depth from
less than 1 m (3.3 ft) nearshore to
approximately 20 m (66 ft), depending
on the structure and location.
Ongoing vessel activities throughout
Tongass Narrows, land-based industrial
and commercial activities, and regular
aircraft operations result in elevated inair and underwater sound conditions in
the project area that increase with
proximity to the proposed project
component sites. Sound levels likely
vary seasonally, with elevated levels
during summer when the tourism and
fishing industries are at their peaks.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
Planned construction includes the
installation and continued construction
of new ferry facilities and the
renovation of existing structures. As
stated above, the four proposed
construction components include: The
Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility,
the Gravina Freight Facility, the Revilla
New Ferry Berth and Upland
Improvements, and the New Gravina
Island Shuttle Ferry Berth and Related
Terminal Improvements. ADOT
anticipates that work may occur at
multiple sites concurrently, and that
two hammers or DTH equipment could
be used concurrently (discussed further
in the Estimated Take section).
Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility
The new ferry layup dock and transfer
bridge would support layup and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
5983
maintenance of the airport ferry system.
The current layup dock at the Gravina
Airport Ferry Layup Facility is in
disrepair and needs to be replaced.
ADOT would remove the existing 265ft (80.1-m)-long floating dock, mooring
structures, and transfer bridge and
construct a new 250-ft by 85-ft (76.2 m
by 25.9 m) concrete or steel floating
dock in its place. The floating dock
would be restrained by two siderestraint float dolphins and three
corner/mid-restraint float dolphins. A
new 20-ft by 140-ft (6.1 m by 42.6 m)
steel transfer bridge would provide
access to the floating dock. It would be
necessary to remove, relocate, and
replenish the existing rock slope,
demolish the existing concrete
abutment, and construct a new pilesupported bridge abutment. The Gravina
Airport Ferry Layup Facility
construction and Gravina Freight
Facility construction is anticipated to
require a total of 47 days of in-water pile
installation and removal.
Gravina Freight Facility
The new Gravina Freight Facility,
located approximately 100 m from the
Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility
(Figure 1), would be constructed in the
same location as the existing barge
offload facility. This facility would
provide improved access to Gravina
Island for highway loads that cannot be
accommodated by the shuttle ferry. The
existing ramp would be widened and regraded both above and below the high
tide line. A new concrete plank or
asphalt pavement ramp would be
constructed in its place. Five breasting
dolphins and one mooring dolphin
would be constructed to support barge
docking and would include pedestrian
walkways for access by personnel. In
addition, two new pile-supported
mooring structures would be
constructed above the high tide line. As
stated above, the Gravina Airport Ferry
Layup Facility construction and Gravina
Freight Facility construction is
anticipated to require a total of 47 days
of in-water pile installation and
removal.
Revilla New Ferry Berth and Upland
Improvements
The new Revilla Island airport shuttle
ferry berth is the only project
component that would occur on Revilla
Island, and is currently under
construction immediately adjacent to
the existing Revilla Island Ferry Berth
(Figure 1). The new ferry berth consists
of a 7,400 square ft (ft2; 687.4 m2) pilesupported approach trestle at the shore
side of the ferry terminal and a 1,500 ft2
(139.4 m) pile-supported approach
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
5984
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
trestle extension located landside and
north of the new approach trestle. A 25ft by 142-ft (7.6 m by 43.2 m) steel
transfer bridge with vehicle traffic lane
and separated pedestrian walkway
extends from the trestle to a new 2,200
ft2 (204.3 m2) steel float and apron. The
steel float is supported by three guide
pile dolphins. A bulkhead retaining
wall is being constructed at the
transition from uplands to the approach
trestle. Two new stern berth dolphins
with fixed hanging fenders and three
new floating fender dolphins are being
constructed to moor vessels. The new
apron would be supported by three new
guide pile dolphins. Water depths at the
dolphins reach approximately 60 ft
(18.2 m).
While construction on the Revilla
New Ferry Berth is already underway,
ADOT anticipates that it would not be
complete before ADOT’s current IHA
(86 FR 23938; May 5, 2021) expires.
Therefore, ADOT has requested take
associated with the portion of the
project that it anticipates may remain,
which consists of installation of up to
five tension anchors.
Upland improvements associated
with the Revilla New Ferry Berth
include reconstruction of terminal
facilities, installation of utilities, and
construction of improvements to
existing staging/parking areas. Upland
improvements are not anticipated to
harass marine mammals, and therefore,
are not discussed further in this
document.
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth and
Related Terminal Improvements
The new Gravina Island Airport
Shuttle Ferry Berth is currently under
construction (86 FR 23938; May 5, 2021)
immediately adjacent to the existing
Gravina Island Ferry Berth (Figure 1).
The new facility consists of an
approximately 7,000 ft2 (650.3 m2) pilesupported approach trestle at the shore
side of the ferry terminal. A 25-ft by
142-ft (7.6 m by 43.2 m) steel transfer
bridge with vehicle traffic lane and
separated pedestrian walkway leads to a
new 2,200 ft2 (204.3 m2) steel float and
apron. The steel float is supported by
three new guide pile dolphins. Ferry
berthing is supported by two new stern
berth dolphins and three new floating
fender dolphins. To support the new
facility, a new bulkhead retaining wall
is being constructed between the
existing ferry berth and the new
approach trestle. A new fill slope
measuring approximately 21,200 ft2
(1,969.5 m2) is being constructed west of
the approach trestle. Upland
improvements include widening of the
ferry approach road, retrofits to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
existing pedestrian walkway,
installation of utilities, and construction
of a new employee access walkway. Due
to unforeseen construction delays
encountered during the Phase 1 IHA
construction period, ADOT anticipates
that construction on the Gravina Island
Shuttle Ferry Berth would not be
completed before the expiration of the
current IHA (86 FR 23938; May 5, 2021).
Therefore, ADOT has requested take
associated with the portion of the
project that it anticipates may remain,
which consists of up to 35 piles (both
plumb and battered), 17–21 rock
sockets, 28 tension anchors, and up to
4 micropile anchors (Table 1).
Across the four project sites, three
methods of pile installation are
anticipated. These include vibratory and
impact hammers, use of DTH systems to
make holes for rock sockets and tension
and micropile anchors at some locations
(Figure 1–3 of ADOT’s IHA
Application). Installation of steel piles
through the sediment layer would be
accomplished using vibratory or impact
methods. Depending on the location, the
pile would be advanced to refusal at
bedrock. Where sediments are deep and
rock socketing or anchoring (described
below) is not required, the final
approximately 10 ft (3 m) of driving
would be conducted using an impact
hammer so that the structural capacity
of the pile embedment can be verified
or proofed. Proofing is expected to
require approximately 50 strikes over 15
minutes. Where sediments are shallow,
an impact hammer would be used to
seat the piles into competent bedrock
before a DTH system is used to create
holes for the rock sockets and/or tension
anchors. The pile installation methods
used would depend on sediment depth
and conditions at each pile location.
Rock sockets are holes made in the
bedrock where overlying sediments are
too shallow to adequately secure the
bottom portion of a pile using other
methods. Rock sockets are constructed
utilizing a DTH device which uses both
rotary and percussion-type drill action.
These devices consist of a drill bit that
drills through the bedrock using both
rotary and pulse impact mechanisms.
This breaks up the rock to allow
removal of the fragments, creating a hole
that allows for insertion of the pile. The
socket holes are just large enough for the
pile to fit down in to provide lateral
strength for the pile. The pile is usually
advanced at the same time that drilling
occurs (the bit has a flexible tip that can
be retracted and pulled back up through
the center of a pile). Rock socket holes
would be up to 15 ft (4.6 m) into the
bedrock. Drill cuttings are expelled from
the top of the pile using compressed air
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
and/or other fluids. It is estimated that
use of DTH for rock sockets into the
bedrock would take approximately 4–8
hours per pile. Some piles would be
seated in rock sockets as well as
anchored with tension anchors.
Tension anchors are comprised of a
threaded steel rod grouted into the
bedrock strata at a specified depth
below the pile tip. The rod is tested and
anchored to the top of the pile to resist
uplift forces in the associated structure.
Tension anchors are installed within
piles that are DTH drilled or hammered
into the bedrock below the elevation of
the pile tip, after the pile has been
driven through the sediment layer to
refusal. A 6- or 8-inch-diameter steel
pipe casing is inserted inside the largerdiameter production pile. A DTH
hammer and bit is inserted into the
casing, and a 6- to 8-inch-diameter hole
is made into bedrock. The typical depth
of the hole varies, but 20–30 ft (6.1–9.1
m) is common to meet engineering
needs. Rock fragments would be
removed through the top of the casing
with compressed air. A steel rebar rod
is then grouted into the drilled hole and
affixed to the top of the pile.
Micropiles have a casing diameter of
approximately 3 to 10 in. A DTH
hammer device is used to create a hole
in a manner identical to the rock sockets
as described above. The micropile
casing is inserted to depth and a steel
reinforcement bar is inserted in the
casing, and then grout is pumped into
the casing. The construction of the
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth
could potentially utilize up to four
micropiles. Because both tension
anchors and micropiles require drilling
an 8-inch-diameter hole, they are
discussed together throughout this
document.
Vibratory methods would also be used
to remove temporary steel pipe piles.
These proposed activities and the noise
they produce have the potential to take
marine mammals, by Level A
harassment and Level B harassment of
marine mammals.
Each of the project components would
include installation of steel pipe piles
that are 20, 24, or 30 inches in diameter
(Table 1). Temporary piles would be
installed and removed with a vibratory
hammer. Some permanent piles would
be battered (i.e., installed at an angle).
Approximately 50 impact strikes would
be required for proofing each permanent
pile, requiring approximately 15
minutes of active impact hammering per
pile.
The estimated average installation
rate for the project is one to one and a
half permanent or two temporary pipe
piles per day (Table 1). On some days,
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
removal rate for temporary piles is two
steel pipe piles per day. On some days,
more or fewer piles may be removed. It
is estimated that the 40 temporary piles
would be removed in 36 days.
In sum, approximately 91 days of pile
installation and removal are anticipated
(Table 1), and of the 102 piles which
ADOT anticipates it will install, 40 of
them will be installed and removed (for
a total of 142 pile installations and
removals).
Above-water work would consist of
the installation of a concrete float, a
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
transfer bridge and transition ramp,
dock-mounted fenders, and utility lines.
A utility and storage building would be
constructed on top of the concrete float.
No in-water noise is anticipated in
association with above-water and
upland construction activities, and no
associated take of marine mammals is
anticipated from the noise or visual
disturbance. Therefore, above-water and
upland construction activities are not
discussed further in this document.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
EN02FE22.001
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
more or fewer piles or partial piles may
be installed. It would likely not be
possible to install an individual
permanent pile to refusal with a
vibratory hammer, use DTH methods for
the rock socket, impact proof, and
install the tension anchor on the same
day. The construction crew may use a
single installation method for multiple
piles on a single day or find other
efficiencies to increase production; the
anticipated ranges of possible values are
provided in Table 1. The estimated
5985
5986
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’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.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 proposed to
be authorized for this specified activity,
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 (2021). 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 (e.g., Muto et
al. 2021). All values presented in Table
2 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available in
the draft 2021 SARs (Muto et al. 2021;
available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports).
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES OR STOCKS FOR WHICH TAKE IS EXPECTED AND PROPOSED TO BE AUTHORIZED
Common name
MMPA
stock
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock abundance Nbest,
(CV; Nmin; most recent
abundance survey) 2
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae:
Humpback whale ................
Minke whale .......................
Megaptera novaeangliae ..........
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ......
Central North Pacific ......
Alaska .............................
E, D, Y
-, N
10,103 (0.3; 7,890; 2006) .........
N.A.(See SAR; N.A.; see SAR)
83 ...........
UND .......
26
0
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Killer whale .........................
Pacific white-sided dolphin
Orcinus orca .............................
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ....
Alaska Resident .............
West Coast Transient .....
Northern Resident ..........
North Pacific ...................
-, N
-, N
-, N
-,-; N
2,347 (N.A.; 2,347; 2012) .........
349 (N.A, 349; 2018) ................
302 (N.A.; 302; 2018 ................
26,880 (N.A.; N.A.; 1990) .........
24 ...........
3.5 ..........
2.2 ..........
UND .......
1
0.4
0.2
0
See SAR (see SAR; see SAR;
2012).
See SAR (see SAR; see SAR;
2015).
See SAR
34
See SAR
37
43,201 (see
2017).
SAR;
43,201;
2,592 ......
112
27,659 (See
2015).
SAE;
24,854;
746 .........
40
Family Phocoenidae
Harbor porpoise .................
Phocoena phocoena .................
Southeast Alaska ...........
-, Y
Dall’s porpoise ....................
Phocoenoides dalli ....................
Alaska .............................
-, N
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
Steller sea lion ...................
Eumetopias jubatus ..................
Harbor seal .........................
Phoca vitulina richardii ..............
Eastern U.S. ...................
-,-, N
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
Clarence Strait ................
-, N
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N.A.).
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury (M/SI) from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
All species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
included in Table 3–1 of the IHA
application. However, the spatial
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
occurrence of gray whale and fin whale
is such that take is not expected to
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
occur, and they are not discussed
further beyond the explanation
provided here. Gray whales have not
been reported by any local experts or
recorded in monitoring reports and it
would be extremely unlikely for a gray
whale to enter Tongass Narrows or the
small portions of Revillagigedo Channel
this project would impact. Similarly for
fin whale, sightings have not been
reported and it would be unlikely for a
fin whale to enter the project area as
they are generally associated with
deeper, more offshore waters. The
remaining eight species (with 10
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 have proposed
authorizing it.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found
throughout Southeast Alaska in a
variety of marine environments,
including open-ocean, near-shore
waters, and areas with strong tidal
currents (Dahlheim et al. 2009). Most
humpback whales are migratory and
spend winters in the breeding grounds
off either Hawaii or Mexico. Humpback
whales generally arrive in Southeast
Alaska in March and return to their
wintering grounds in November. Some
humpback whales depart late or arrive
early to feeding grounds, and therefore
the species occurs in Southeast Alaska
year-round (Straley 1990; Straley et al.
2018). Current threats to humpback
whales include vessel strikes, spills,
climate change, and commercial fishing
operations (Muto et al. 2021).
Humpback whales worldwide were
designated as ‘‘endangered’’ under the
Endangered Species Conservation Act in
1970, and were listed under the ESA at
its inception in 1973. However, on
September 8, 2016, NMFS published a
final decision that changed the status of
humpback whales under the ESA (81 FR
62259), effective October 11, 2016. The
decision recognized the existence of 14
DPSs based on distinct breeding areas in
tropical and temperate waters. Five of
the 14 DPSs were classified under the
ESA (4 endangered and 1 threatened),
while the other 9 DPSs were delisted.
Humpback whales found in the project
area are predominantly members of the
Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under
the ESA. However, based on a
comprehensive photo-identification
study, members of the Mexico DPS,
which is listed as threatened, are known
to occur in Southeast Alaska. Members
of different DPSs are known to intermix
on feeding grounds; therefore, all waters
off the coast of Alaska should be
considered to have ESA-listed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
humpback whales. Approximately 2
percent of all humpback whales in
Southeast Alaska and northern British
Columbia are members of the Mexico
DPS, while all others are members of the
Hawaii DPS (Wade et al. 2021).
The DPSs of humpback whales that
were identified through the ESA listing
process do not necessarily equate to the
existing MMPA stocks. The stock
delineations of humpback whales under
the MMPA are currently under review.
Until this review is complete, NMFS
considers humpback whales in
Southeast Alaska to be part of the
Central North Pacific stock, with a
status of endangered under the ESA and
designations of strategic and depleted
under the MMPA (Muto et al. 2021).
Southeast Alaska is considered a
biologically important area for feeding
humpback whales between March and
May (Ellison et al. 2012), though not
currently designated as critical habitat
(86 FR 21082; April 21, 2021). Most
humpback whales migrate to other
regions during the winter to breed, but
rare events of over-wintering
humpbacks have been noted, and may
be attributable to staggered migration
(Straley, 1990; Straley et al. 2018). It is
thought that those humpbacks that
remain in Southeast Alaska do so in
response to the availability of winter
schools of fish prey, which primarily
includes overwintering herring (Straley
et al. 2018). In Alaska, humpback
whales filter feed on tiny crustaceans,
plankton, and small fish such as walleye
pollock, Pacific sand lance, herring,
eulachon, and capelin (Witteveen et al.
2012). It is common to observe groups
of humpback whales cooperatively
bubble feeding. Group sizes in
Southeast Alaska generally range from
one to four individuals (Dahlheim et al.
2009).
No systematic studies have
documented humpback whale
abundance near Ketchikan. Anecdotal
information (See Section 4 of IHA
Application) suggests that this species is
present in low numbers year-round in
Tongass Narrows, with the highest
abundance during summer and fall.
Anecdotal reports suggest that
humpback whales are seen only once or
twice per month, while more recently it
has been suggested that the occurrence
is more regular, such as once per week
on average, and more seasonal.
Humpbacks observed in Tongass
Narrows are generally alone or in groups
of one to three individuals. Most
humpback whales depart Alaska for
their breeding grounds in October and
November, and return in March and
April. In August 2017, a group of six
individuals was observed passing
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
5987
through Tongass Narrows several times
per day, for several days in a row. Local
residents reported that such high
abundance is common in August and
September. NMFS reported that in 2018
airport ferry personnel observed a lone
humpback whale in the area every few
days for several months and a group of
two humpback whales every other week
(Muto et al. 2019).
In the Biological Opinion for this
project, NMFS assumed the occurrence
of humpback whales in the project area
to be one two individuals twice per
week, year-round. The assumption was
based on differences in abundance
throughout the year, recent observations
of larger groups of whales present
during summer, and a higher than
average frequency of occurrence in
recent months.
The City of Ketchikan (COK) Rock
Pinnacle project, which was located
approximately 4 km southeast of the
proposed project site, reported one
humpback whale sighting of one
individual during the project (December
2019 through January 2020) (Sitkiewicz
2020). During the Ward Cove Cruise
Ship Dock Construction, located
approximately 5 km northwest of the
proposed project site, protected species
observers (PSOs) observed 28 sightings
of humpbacks on eighteen days of in
water work that occurred between
February and September 2020, with at
least one humpback being recorded
every month. A total of 42 individuals
were recorded and group sizes ranged
from solo whales to pods of up to six
(Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska
2020). Humpbacks were recorded in
each month of construction, with the
most individuals (10) being recorded in
May, 2020.
Humpback whales were sighted on 17
days out of 88 days of monitoring in
Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d). There were no sightings in
January or February, but humpback
whales were observed each month from
October to December 2020 and May to
June 2021 (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). There was only 1 day in
June in which humpback whales were
observed, but on that day there were
four groups of whales—three pairs and
one group of four (DOT&PF 2021d). In
other months, humpback whale
sightings were mostly individual
animals and occasionally pairs. During
November 2020, a single known
individual (by fluke pattern) was
observed repeatedly, accounting for 14
of the 26 sighting events that month
(DOT&PF 2020). During monitoring,
humpback whales were observed on
average once a week.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
5988
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Minke Whale
Minke whales are found throughout
the northern hemisphere in polar,
temperate, and tropical waters. The
population status of minke whales is
considered stable throughout most of
their range. Historically, commercial
whaling reduced the population size of
this species, but given their small size,
they were never a primary target of
whaling and did not experience the
severe population declines as did larger
cetaceans.
The International Whaling
Commission has identified a less
concentrated stock throughout the
eastern Pacific. NOAA further splits this
stock between Alaska whales and
resident whales of California, Oregon,
and Washington (Muto et al., 2021).
Minke whales are found in all Alaska
waters. There are no population
estimates for minke whales in Alaska.
Surveys in Southeast Alaska have
consistently identified individuals
throughout inland waters in low
numbers (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Minke whales in Southeast Alaska are
part of the Alaska stock (Muto et al.
2021). Dedicated surveys for cetaceans
in Southeast Alaska found that minke
whales were scattered throughout
inland waters from Glacier Bay and Icy
Strait to Clarence Strait, with small
concentrations near the entrance of
Glacier Bay (Dahlheim et al. 2009). All
sightings were of single minke whales,
except for a single sighting of multiple
minke whales. Surveys took place in
spring, summer, and fall, and minke
whales were present in low numbers in
all seasons and years. No information
appears to be available on the winter
occurrence of minke whales in
Southeast Alaska.
In Alaska, the minke whale diet
consists primarily of euphausiids and
walleye pollock. Minke whales are
generally found in shallow, coastal
waters within 200 m of shore (Zerbini
et al. 2006) and are almost always
solitary or in small groups of 2 to 3. In
Alaska, seasonal movements are
associated with feeding areas that are
generally located at the edge of the pack
ice (NMFS 2014).
There are no known occurrences of
minke whales within the project area.
Since their ranges extend into the
project area and they have been
observed in southeast Alaska, including
in Clarence Strait (Dahlheim et al.,
2009), it is possible the species could
occur near the project area. During the
surveys by Dalheim et al. (2009), all but
one encounter was with a single whale
and, although infrequent, minke whales
were observed during all seasons
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
surveyed (spring, summer and fall). No
minke whales where reported during
the COK Rock Pinnacle Blasting Project
(Sitkiewicz 2020). During marine
mammal monitoring of Tongass
Narrows in 2020 and 2021, there were
no minke whales observed on 88 days
of observations across 7 months
(October 2020–February 2021; May–
June 2021) (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Future
observations of minke whale in the
project area are expected to be rare.
Killer Whale
Killer whales have been observed in
all the world’s oceans, but the highest
densities occur in colder and more
productive waters found at high
latitudes (NMFS 2016). Killer whales
occur along the entire Alaska coast, in
British Columbia and Washington
inland waterways, and along the outer
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California (NMFS 2016).
Based on data regarding association
patterns, acoustics, movements, and
genetic differences, eight killer whale
stocks are now recognized within the
Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
This proposed IHA considers only the
Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident
stock (Alaska Resident stock), Eastern
North Pacific Northern Resident stock
(Northern Resident stock), and West
Coast Transient stock, because all other
stocks occur outside the geographic area
under consideration (Muto et al., 2021).
There are three distinct ecotypes, or
forms, of killer whales recognized:
Resident, Transient, and Offshore. The
three ecotypes differ morphologically,
ecologically, behaviorally, and
genetically. Surveys between 1991 and
2007 encountered resident killer whales
during all seasons throughout Southeast
Alaska. Both residents and transients
were common in a variety of habitats
and all major waterways, including
protected bays and inlets. There does
not appear to be strong seasonal
variation in abundance or distribution
of killer whales, but there was
substantial variability between years
during this study (Dahlheim et al.,
2009). Spatial distribution has been
shown to vary among the different
ecotypes, with resident and, to a lesser
extent, transient killer whales more
commonly observed along the
continental shelf, and offshore killer
whales more commonly observed in
pelagic waters (Rice et al., 2021).
No systematic studies of killer whales
have been conducted in or around
Tongass Narrows. Killer whales have
been observed in Tongass Narrows yearround and are most common during the
summer Chinook salmon run (May-
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
July). During the Chinook salmon run,
Ketchikan residents have reported pods
of 20–30 whales and during the 2016/
2017 winter a pod of 5 whales was
observed in Tongass Narrows (84 FR
36891; July 30, 2019). Typical pod sizes
observed within the project vicinity
range from 1 to 10 animals and the
frequency of killer whales passing
through the action area is estimated to
be once per month (Frietag 2017).
Anecdotal reports suggest that large
pods of killer whales (as many as 80
individuals, but generally between 25
and 40 individuals) are not uncommon
in May, June, and July when the king
salmon are running. During the rest of
the year, killer whales occur irregularly
in pods of 6 to 12 or more individuals.
Large pods would be indicative of the
Alaska resident population, which
travels and hunts in large social groups.
Transient killer whales are often
found in long-term stable social units
(pods) of 1 to 16 whales. Average pod
sizes in Southeast Alaska were 6.0 in
spring, 5.0 in summer, and 3.9 in fall.
Pod sizes of transient whales are
generally smaller than those of resident
social groups. Resident killer whales
occur in larger pods, ranging from 7 to
70 whales that are seen in association
with one another more than 50 percent
of the time (Dahlheim et al., 2009;
NMFS 2016b). In Southeast Alaska,
resident killer whale mean pod size was
approximately 21.5 in spring, 32.3 in
summer, and 19.3 in fall (Dahlheim et
al., 2009).
Although killer whales may occur in
large numbers, they generally form large
pods and would incur fewer work
stoppages than their numbers suggest.
Killer whales tend to transit through
Tongass Narrows, and do not linger in
the project area.
Marine mammal observations in
Tongass Narrows during 2020 and 2021
support an estimate of approximately
one group of killer whales a month in
the project area. During 7 months of
monitoring (October 2020–February
2021; May–June 2021), there were five
killer whale sightings in 4 months
(November, February, May, June)
totaling 22 animals and sightings
occurred on 5 out of 88 days of
monitoring (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Pod sizes ranged
from two to eight animals (DOT&PF
2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
During the COK’s monitoring for the
Rock Pinnacle Removal project in
December 2019 and January 2020, no
killer whales were observed (Sitkiewicz
2020). Over 8 months of monitoring at
the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock in
2020, killer whales were only observed
on two days in March (Power Systems
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). These
observations included a sighting of one
pod of two killer whales and a second
pod of five individuals travelling
through the project area.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are a
pelagic species inhabiting temperate
waters of the North Pacific Ocean and
along the coasts of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Alaska (Muto et al.,
2021). Despite their distribution mostly
in deep, offshore waters, they may also
be found over the continental shelf and
near shore waters, including inland
waters of Southeast Alaska (Ferrero and
Walker 1996). The North Pacific stock is
found within the project area. The
Pacific white-sided dolphin is
distributed throughout the temperate
North Pacific Ocean, north of Baja
California to Alaska’s southern coastline
and Aleutian Islands. The North Pacific
Stock ranges from Canada into Alaska
(Muto et al., 2021).
Pacific white-sided dolphins prey on
squid and small schooling fish such as
capelin, sardines, and herring (Morton
2006). They are known to work in
groups to herd schools of fish and can
dive underwater for up to 6 minutes to
feed (Morton 2006). Group sizes have
been reported to range from 40 to over
1,000 animals, but groups of between 10
and 100 individuals (Stacey and Baird
1991) occur most commonly. Seasonal
movements of Pacific white-sided
dolphins are not well understood, but
there is evidence of both north-south
seasonal movement (Leatherwood et al.
1984) and inshore-offshore seasonal
movement (Stacey and Baird 1991).
Scientific studies and data are lacking
relative to the presence or abundance of
Pacific white-sided dolphins in or near
Tongass Narrows. Although they
generally prefer deeper and moreoffshore waters, anecdotal reports
suggest that Pacific white-sided
dolphins have previously been observed
in Tongass Narrows, although they have
not been observed entering Tongass
Narrows or nearby inter-island
waterways in 15–20 years.
Pacific white-sided dolphins are rare
in the inside passageways of Southeast
Alaska. Most observations occur off the
outer coast or in inland waterways near
entrances to the open ocean. According
to Muto et al. (2018), aerial surveys in
1997 sighted one group of 164 Pacific
white-sided dolphins in Dixon entrance
to the south of Tongass Narrows.
Surveys in April and May from 1991 to
1993 identified Pacific white-sided
dolphins in Revillagigedo Channel,
Behm Canal, and Clarence Strait
(Dahlheim and Towell 1994). These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
areas are contiguous with the open
ocean waters of Dixon Entrance.
Dalheim et al. (2009) frequently
encountered Pacific white-sided
dolphin in Clarence Strait with
significant differences in mean group
size and rare enough encounters to limit
the seasonality investigation to a
qualitative note that spring featured the
highest number of animals observed.
These observations were noted most
typically in open strait environments,
near the open ocean. Mean group size
was over 20, with no recorded winter
observations nor observations made in
the Nichols Passage or Behm Canal,
located on either side of the Tongass
Narrows. Though generally preferring
more pelagic, open-water environments,
Pacific white-sided dolphin could be
present within the action area during
the construction period. This
observational data, combined with
anecdotal information, indicates there is
a rare, however, slight potential for
Pacific white-sided dolphins to occur in
the project area.
During marine mammal monitoring of
Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021, no
Pacific white-sided dolphins were
observed on 88 days of observations
across 7 months (October 2020–
February 2021; May–June 2021), which
supports the anecdotal evidence that
sightings of this species are rare
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d). There were also no sightings of
Pacific white-sided dolphins during the
COK Rock Pinnacle Blasting Project
during monitoring surveys conducted in
December 2019 and January 2020
(Sitkiewicz 2020) or during monitoring
surveys conducted between February
and September 2020 as part of the Ward
Cove Cruise Ship Dock (Power Systems
and Supplies of Alaska, 2020).
Harbor Porpoise
In the eastern North Pacific Ocean,
the harbor porpoise ranges from Point
Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and
down the west coast of North America
to Point Conception, California. In
Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently
divided into three stocks, based
primarily on geography: The Bering Sea
stock, the Southeast Alaska stock, and
the Gulf of Alaska stock. The Southeast
Alaska stock ranges from Cape Suckling
to the Canadian border (Muto et al.
2021). Harbor porpoises frequent
primarily coastal waters in Southeast
Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009) and occur
most frequently in waters less than 100
m (328 ft) deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010;
Dahlheim et al. 2015).
Abundance data for harbor porpoises
in Southeast Alaska were collected
during 18 seasonal surveys spanning 22
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
5989
years, from 1991 to 2012 (Dahlheim et
al. 2015). The project area and Tongass
Narrows fall within the Clarence Strait
to Ketchikan region, as identified by this
study for the survey effort. Harbor
porpoise densities in this region in
summer were low, ranging from 0.01 to
0.02 harbor porpoises/km2.
Studies of harbor porpoises reported
no evidence of seasonal changes in
distribution for the inland waters of
Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
Their small overall size, lack of a visible
blow, low dorsal fins and overall low
profile, and short surfacing time make
them difficult to observe (Dahlheim et
al. 2015), likely reducing identification
and reporting of this species, and these
estimates therefore may be low.
Calving occurs from May to August;
however, this can vary by region. Harbor
porpoises are often found traveling
alone, or in small groups less than 10
individuals (Schmale 2008). According
to aerial surveys of harbor porpoise
abundance in Alaska conducted in
1991–1993, mean group size in
Southeast Alaska was calculated to be
1.2 animals (Dahlheim et al. 2000).
Anecdotal reports (see Section 3 of
the IHA Application) specific to
Tongass Narrows indicate that harbor
porpoises are rarely observed in the
project area, and actual sightings are
less common than those suggested by
Dahlheim et al. (2015). Harbor porpoises
prefer shallower waters (Dahlheim et al.
2015) and generally are not attracted to
areas with elevated levels of vessel
activity and noise such as Tongass
Narrows. Harbor porpoises are expected
to be present in the project area only a
few times per year. Freitag (2017 as
cited in 83 FR 22009; May 11, 2018)
observed harbor porpoises in Tongass
Narrows zero to one time per month and
NMFS (83 FR 22009; May 11, 2018) has
estimated that one group of harbor
porpoises would enter Tongass Narrows
each month.
Harbor porpoises were sighted on 3
days of in-water work during
monitoring associated with the Ward
Cove Cruise Ship Dock, with three
sightings of 15 individuals sighted in
March and April, 2020 (Power Systems
and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Solo
individuals and pods of up to 10 were
identified as swimming and travelling
2,500 m to 2,800 m from in-water work.
During marine mammal monitoring of
Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021, no
harbor porpoises were observed on 88
days of observations across 7 months
(October 2020–February 2021; May–
June 2021), which supports the
anecdotal evidence that harbor porpoise
sightings are rare (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Marine mammal
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
5990
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
monitoring associated with the COK
Rock Pinnacle Removal project also did
not observe any harbor porpoise during
surveys conducted in December 2019
and January 2020 (Sitkiewicz 2020).
Dall’s Porpoise
Dall’s porpoises are found throughout
the North Pacific, from southern Japan
to southern California north to the
Bering Sea. Dall’s porpoises are not
listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA. All Dall’s porpoises in
Alaska are members of the Alaska stock,
and those off California, Oregon, and
Washington are part of a separate stock.
This species can be found in offshore,
inshore, and nearshore habitat, but
prefer waters more than 600 ft (180 m)
deep (Jefferson 2009).
No systematic studies of Dall’s
porpoise abundance or distribution have
occurred in Tongass Narrows; however,
surveys for cetaceans throughout
Southeast Alaska were conducted
between 1991 and 2007 (Dahlheim et al.
2009). The species is generally found in
waters in excess of 600 ft (183 m) deep
(Dahlheim et al. 2009, Jefferson 2009),
which do not occur in Tongass Narrows.
Jefferson et al. (2019) presents historical
survey data showing few sightings in
the Ketchikan area, and based on these
occurrence patterns, concludes that
Dall’s porpoise rarely come into narrow
waterways, like Tongass Narrows.
Anecdotal reports suggest that Dall’s
porpoises are found northwest of
Ketchikan near the Guard Islands,
where waters are deeper, as well as in
deeper waters to the southeast of
Tongass Narrows. Should Dall’s
porpoises occur in the project area, they
would likely be present in March or
April, given past observations in the
region. Despite generalized water depth
preferences, Dall’s porpoises may occur
in shallower waters. This species has a
tendency to bow-ride with vessels and
may occur in the project area
incidentally a few times per year.
The mean group size in Southeast
Alaska is estimated at approximately
three individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009;
Jefferson 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, 83 FR 37473; August 1,
2018).
Dall’s porpoises were positively
identified on 2 days of in-water work
during monitoring associated with the
Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock (Power
Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020).
A pod of three and a pod of five were
recorded travelling at least 3,000 m from
the construction site in April and May,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
respectively. During marine mammal
monitoring of Tongass Narrows in 2020
and 2021, there were sightings of Dall’s
porpoises on 2 out of 88 days of
observations across 7 months (October
2020–February 2021; May–June 2021)—
once in November 2020 and once in
February 2021. The pod sighted in
November contained six animals; the
pod observed in February had 10. Based
on this recent data, there is no known
pattern to their attendance in the project
area, but they do occur rarely (DOT&PF
2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions were listed as
threatened range-wide under the ESA
on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204).
Steller sea lions were subsequently
partitioned into the western and eastern
DPSs (and MMPA stocks) in 1997 (62
FR 24345; May 5, 1997). The eastern
DPS remained classified as threatened
until it was delisted in November 2013.
The current minimum abundance
estimate for the eastern DPS of Steller
sea lions is 43,201 individuals (Muto et
al. 2021). The western DPS (those
individuals west of 144° W longitude or
Cape Suckling, Alaska) was upgraded to
endangered status following separation
of the DPSs, and it remains endangered
today. There is regular movement of
both DPSs across this 144° W longitude
boundary (Jemison et al. 2013),
however, due to the distance from this
DPS boundary, it is likely that only
eastern DPS Steller sea lions are present
in the project area. Therefore, animals
potentially affected by the project are
assumed to be part of the eastern DPS.
There are several mapped and
regularly monitored long-term Steller
sea lion haulouts surrounding
Ketchikan, such as West Rocks (36
miles/58 km) or Nose Point (37 miles/
60 km), but none are known to occur
within Tongass Narrows (Fritz et al.
2015). The nearest known Steller sea
lion haulout is located approximately 20
miles (58 km) west/northwest of
Ketchikan on Grindall Island (Figure 4–
1 in application). Summer counts of
adult and juvenile sea lions at this
haulout since 2000 have averaged
approximately 191 individuals, with a
range from 6 in 2009 to 378 in 2008.
Only two winter surveys of this haulout
have occurred. In March 1993, a total of
239 individuals were recorded, and in
December 1994, a total of 211
individuals were recorded. No sea lion
pups have been observed at this haulout
during surveys. Although this is a
limited and dated sample, it suggests
that abundance may be consistent yearround at the Grindall Island haulout.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
No systematic studies of sea lion
abundance or distribution have
occurred in Tongass Narrows.
Anecdotal reports suggest that Steller
sea lions may be found in Tongass
Narrows year-round, with an increase in
abundance from March to early May
during the herring spawning season,
and another increase in late summer
associated with salmon runs. Overall
sea lion presence in Tongass Narrows
tends to be lower in summer than in
winter (FHWA 2017). During summer,
Steller sea lions may aggregate outside
the project area, at rookery and haulout
sites. Monitoring during construction of
the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal in
summer (July 16 through August 17,
2016) did not record any Steller sea
lions (ADOT&PF 2015); however,
monitoring during construction of the
Ward Cove Dock, located approximately
6 km northwest of the Project site,
recorded 181 individual sea lions on 44
days between February and September
2020 (Power Systems & Supplies of
Alaska, 2020). Most sightings occurred
in February (45 sightings of 88 sea lions)
and March (34 sightings of 45 sea lions);
the fewest number of sightings were
observed in May (1 sighting of 1 sea
lion) (Power Systems & Supplies of
Alaska, 2020). Sightings were of single
individuals, pairs, and herds of up to 10
individuals.
Sea lions are known to transit through
Tongass Narrows while pursuing prey.
Steller sea lions are also known to
follow fishing vessels, and may
congregate in small numbers at seafood
processing facilities and hatcheries or at
the mouths of rivers and creeks
containing hatcheries, where large
numbers of salmon congregate in late
summer. Three seafood processing
facilities are located east of the
proposed berth location on Revilla
Island, and two salmon hatcheries
operated by the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) are located east
of the project area. Steller sea lions may
aggregate near the mouth of Ketchikan
Creek, where a hatchery upstream
supports a summer salmon run. The
Creek mouth is more than 4 km (2.5 mi)
from both ferry berth sites, and is
positioned behind the cruise ship
terminal and within the small boat
harbor. In addition to these locations,
anecdotal information from a local
kayaking company suggests that there
are Steller sea lions present at Gravina
Point, near the southwest entrance to
Tongass Narrows.
A total of 181 Steller sea lions were
sighted on 44 separate days during all
months of Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock
construction (February through
September, 2020) (Power Systems and
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Most
sightings occurred in February and
March and the fewest sightings were in
May. Sightings were of single
individuals, pairs, and herds of up to 10
individuals.
The DOT&PF implemented a marine
mammal monitoring program in
Tongass Narrows for recent previous
construction components of the Tongass
Narrows Project (84 FR 34134; July 17,
2019). Monitoring took place from
October 2020 through February 2021
and May through June 2021, and results
indicated that Steller sea lion numbers
were highest in January and February
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d). Steller sea lions were observed
in the Tongass Narrows Project area on
49 of 88 days between October 2020 and
June 2021 (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). They were observed in
every month that observations took
place (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). Over the course of the 7
months of monitoring, there were 77
sightings of 92 individual animals
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d). Sightings of Steller sea lions
were most frequent in January and
February and least common in May and
June (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). Sightings were primarily
of single animals, but animals were also
present in pairs and groups up to five
sea lions (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). This is consistent with
Freitag (2017 as cited in 83 FR 22009;
May 11, 2018), though groups of up to
80 individuals have been observed
(HDR, Inc. 2003). On average over the
course of a year, Steller sea lions occur
in Tongass Narrows approximately three
or four times per week (DOT&PF 2020,
2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals range from Baja
California north along the west coasts of
Washington, Oregon, California, British
Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west
through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince
William Sound, and the Aleutian
Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to
Cape Newenham and the Pribilof
Islands. In 2010, harbor seals in Alaska
were partitioned into 12 separate stocks
based largely on genetic structure (Allen
and Angliss 2010). Harbor seals in
Tongass Narrows are recognized as part
of the Clarence Strait stock. Distribution
of the Clarence Strait stock ranges from
the east coast of Prince of Wales Island
from Cape Chacon north through
Clarence Strait to Point Baker and along
the east coast of Mitkof and Kupreanof
Islands north to Bay Point, including
Ernest Sound, Behm Canal, and Pearse
Canal (Muto et al. 2021). The latest
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
stock assessment analysis indicates that
the current 8-year estimate of the
Clarence Strait population trend is +138
seals per year, with a probability that
the stock is decreasing of 0.413 (Muto et
al. 2021). Harbor seals haul out on
rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial
ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and
occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals
are generally non-migratory, with local
movements associated with such factors
as tides, weather, season, food
availability, and reproduction (Muto, et
al. 2021).
No systematic studies of harbor seal
abundance or distribution have
occurred in Tongass Narrows. Aerial
surveys conducted in August 2011 did
not record any harbor seal haulouts in
Tongass Narrows, but several haulouts
were located on the outer shores of
Gravina Island (London et al. 2015).
There is no known harbor seal haulout
in Tongass Narrows although seals have
been observed hauled out on docks in
Ketchikan Harbor. The closest listed
haulout is located off the tip of Gravina
Island, approximately 8 km (5 mi)
northwest of Ward Cove (AFSC 2018).
Anecdotal observations indicate that
harbor seals are common in Tongass
Narrows, although no data exist to
quantify abundance. Two salmon
hatcheries operated by ADF&G are
located east of the project area. Like
Steller sea lions, harbor seals may
aggregate near the mouth of Ketchikan
Creek when salmon are running in
summer. The creek mouth is more than
4 km (2.5 mi) from the project
component sites, and is positioned
behind both the cruise ship terminal
and within the small boat harbor. In the
project area, they tend to be more
abundant during spring, summer and
fall months when salmon are present in
Ward Creek. Anecdotal evidence
indicates that harbor seals typically
occur in groups of 1–3 animals in Ward
Cove (Spokely 2019). They were not
observed in Tongass Narrows during a
combined 63.5 hours of marine mammal
monitoring that took place in 2001 and
2016 (OSSA 2001, Turnagain 2016). The
COK conducted pinnacle rock blasting
in December 2019 and January 2020
near the vicinity of the proposed 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 sighted during
every month of construction (February
through September, 2020) associated
with the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock,
with most sightings in February and
March and the fewest in July (Power
Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020).
There were 247 sighting events of 271
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
5991
individuals. Sighting events were of
solo individuals, pairs, and the
occasional group of three.
Marine mammal monitoring occurred
near the project site from October 2020
to February 2021 and resumed in May
2021 during Phase 1 of the previously
issued IHA (85 FR 673; January 7, 2020).
Harbor seals were observed in the
Tongass Narrows Project area in every
month in which observations took
place, except during October 2020 when
only 3 days of monitoring occurred
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d). Harbor seals were sighted on 68
days out of 88 days of monitoring
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d). They were mostly sightings of
single animals, but animals were also
present in pairs and groups up to five
seals (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d). Sightings of harbor seals
were consistent over the course of 7
months of intermittent monitoring; they
were observed 5 to 6 days per week on
average (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d).
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g.,
Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups
based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral response data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for 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.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
5992
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
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. Eight marine
mammal species (six cetacean and two
pinniped (one otariid and one phocid)
species) have the reasonable potential to
co-occur with the proposed survey
activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present,
two are classified as low-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species),
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., harbor porpoise, Dall’s
porpoise and Kogia spp.).
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take section later in this
document includes a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take section, and the Proposed
Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and how
those impacts on individuals are likely
to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals
during the specified activity can occur
from impact and vibratory pile driving
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
and removal and use of DTH equipment.
The effects of underwater noise from
ADOT’s proposed activities have the
potential to result in Level A or Level
B harassment of marine mammals in the
action area.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised
of both ambient and anthropogenic
sounds. Ambient sound is defined as
the all-encompassing sound in a given
place and is usually a composite of
sound from many sources both near and
far (ANSI 1995). The sound level of an
area is defined by the total acoustical
energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may
include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels,
dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al. 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
In-water construction activities
associated with the project would
include impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving and removal, and use of
DTH equipment. The sounds produced
by these activities fall into one of two
general sound types: Impulsive and
non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g.,
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) are typically
transient, brief (less than 1 second),
broadband, and consist of high peak
sound pressure with rapid rise time and
rapid decay (ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998;
NMFS 2018). Non-impulsive sounds
(e.g. aircraft, machinery operations such
as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile
driving, and active sonar systems) can
be broadband, narrowband or tonal,
brief or prolonged (continuous or
intermittent), and typically do not have
the high peak sound pressure with rapid
rise/decay time that impulsive sounds
do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS
2018). The distinction between these
two sound types is important because
they have differing potential to cause
physical effects, particularly with regard
to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall
et al. 2007).
Three types of hammers would be
used on this project: Impact, vibratory,
and DTH. Impact hammers operate by
repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a
heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile
into the substrate. Sound generated by
impact hammers is characterized by
rapid rise times and high peak levels, a
potentially injurious combination
(Hastings and Popper 2005). Vibratory
hammers install piles by vibrating them
and allowing the weight of the hammer
to push them into the sediment.
Vibratory hammers produce
significantly less sound than impact
hammers. Peak Sound Pressure Levels
(SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are
generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs
generated during impact pile driving of
the same-sized pile (Oestman et al.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the
probability and severity of injury, and
sound energy is distributed over a
greater amount of time (Nedwell and
Edwards 2002; Carlson et al. 2005).
A DTH hammer is essentially a drill
bit that drills through the bedrock using
a rotating function like a normal drill,
in concert with a hammering
mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or
sometimes hydraulic) component
integrated into to the DTH hammer to
increase speed of progress through the
substrate (i.e., it is similar to a ‘‘hammer
drill’’ hand tool). The sounds produced
by the DTH method contain both a
continuous non-impulsive component
from the drilling action and an
impulsive component from the
hammering effect. Therefore, we treat
DTH systems as both impulsive and
continuous, non-impulsive sound
source types simultaneously.
The likely or possible impacts of
ADOT’s proposed activity on marine
mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors could
result from the physical presence of the
equipment and personnel; however, any
impacts to marine mammals are
expected to primarily be acoustic in
nature. Acoustic stressors include
effects of heavy equipment operation
during pile installation and removal and
use of DTH.
Acoustic Impacts
The introduction of anthropogenic
noise into the aquatic environment from
pile driving and removal and DTH is the
primary means by which marine
mammals may be harassed from ADOT’s
specified activity. In general, animals
exposed to natural or anthropogenic
sound may experience physical and
psychological effects, ranging in
magnitude from none to severe
(Southall et al. 2007, 2019). In general,
exposure to pile driving and DTH noise
has the potential to result in auditory
threshold shifts and behavioral
reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary
cessation of foraging and vocalizing,
changes in dive behavior). Exposure to
anthropogenic noise can also lead to
non-observable physiological responses
such an increase in stress hormones.
Additional noise in a marine mammal’s
habitat can mask acoustic cues used by
marine mammals to carry out daily
functions such as communication and
predator and prey detection. The effects
of pile driving and DTH noise on marine
mammals are dependent on several
factors, including, but not limited to,
sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. nonimpulsive), the species, age and sex
class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
calf), duration of exposure, the distance
between the pile and the animal,
received levels, behavior at time of
exposure, and previous history with
exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall
et al. 2007). Here we discuss physical
auditory effects (threshold shifts)
followed by behavioral effects and
potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced
threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually
an increase, in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed
in dB. A TS can be permanent or
temporary. As described in NMFS
(2018), there are numerous factors to
consider when examining the
consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern
(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive),
likelihood an individual would be
exposed for a long enough duration or
to a high enough level to induce a TS,
the magnitude of the TS, time to
recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to
days), the frequency range of the
exposure (i.e., spectral content), the
hearing and vocalization frequency
range of the exposed species relative to
the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e.,
how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g.,
Kastelein et al. 2014), and the overlap
between the animal and the source (e.g.,
spatial, temporal, and spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)—
NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals
indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al.
1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al.
1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996;
Henderson et al. 2008). PTS levels for
marine mammals are estimates, as with
the exception of a single study
unintentionally inducing PTS in a
harbor seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are
no empirical data measuring PTS in
marine mammals largely due to the fact
that, for various ethical reasons,
experiments involving anthropogenic
noise exposure at levels inducing PTS
are not typically pursued or authorized
(NMFS 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A
temporary, reversible increase in the
threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual’s
hearing range above a previously
established reference level (NMFS
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
5993
2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS
measurements (see Southall et al. 2007),
a TTS of 6 dB is considered the
minimum threshold shift clearly larger
than any day-to-day or session-tosession variation in a subject’s normal
hearing ability (Schlundt et al. 2000;
Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As
described in Finneran (2015), marine
mammal studies have shown the
amount of TTS increases with
cumulative sound exposure level
(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At
low exposures with lower SELcum, the
amount of TTS is typically small and
the growth curves have shallow slopes.
At exposures with higher SELcum, the
growth curves become steeper and
approach linear relationships with the
noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious (similar to those discussed in
auditory masking, below). For example,
a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that takes place during
a time when the animal is traveling
through the open ocean, where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts. We
note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as
humans and other taxa (Southall et al.
2007), so we can infer that strategies
exist for coping with this condition to
some degree, though likely not without
cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise
(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and five
species of pinnipeds exposed to a
limited number of sound sources (i.e.,
mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS
was not observed in trained spotted
(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa
hispida) seals exposed to impulsive
noise at levels matching previous
predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et
al. 2016). In general, harbor seals and
harbor porpoises have a lower TTS
onset than other measured pinniped or
cetacean species (Finneran 2015).
Additionally, the existing marine
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
5994
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
mammal TTS data come from a limited
number of individuals within these
species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine
mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see
Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and
Table 5 in NMFS (2018).
Installing piles requires a combination
of impact pile driving, vibratory pile
driving, and DTH. For the project, these
activities may occur at the same time
(up to two hammers of any combination
of hammer/drill type), though such an
occurrence is anticipated to be
infrequent and for short durations on
any given day, given that pile
installation and removal occurs
intermittently to allow for adjusting
piles and measuring and documenting
progress. Therefore, there would likely
be pauses in activities producing the
sound during each day. Given these
pauses and that many marine mammals
are likely moving through the project
area and not remaining for extended
periods of time, the potential for TS
declines.
Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to
noise from pile driving and removal and
DTH also has the potential to
behaviorally disturb marine mammals.
Available studies show wide variation
in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict
specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a
marine mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone
the stock or population. However, if a
sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005).
Disturbance may result in changing
durations of surfacing and dives,
number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of
areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out
time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006).
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and
any reactions depend on numerous
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g.,
species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state,
auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et
al. 2003; Southall et al. 2007; Weilgart
2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral
reactions can vary not only among
individuals but also within an
individual, depending on previous
experience with a sound source,
context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary
depending on characteristics associated
with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of
sources, distance from the source). In
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant
of, or at least habituate more quickly to,
potentially disturbing underwater sound
than do cetaceans, and generally seem
to be less responsive to exposure to
industrial sound than most cetaceans.
Please see Appendices B and C of
Southall et al. (2007) for a review of
studies involving marine mammal
behavioral responses to sound.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al. 2001; Nowacek et al.
2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et
al. 2007). A determination of whether
foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
In 2016, ADOT documented
observations of marine mammals during
construction activities (i.e., pile driving
and DTH) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock
(ABR 2016) in the Gulf of Alaska. In the
marine mammal monitoring report for
that project, 1,281 Steller sea lions were
observed within the estimated Level B
harassment zone during pile driving or
DTH (i.e., documented as potential take
by Level B harassment). Of these, 19
individuals demonstrated an alert
behavior, 7 were fleeing, and 19 swam
away from the project site. All other
animals (98 percent) were engaged in
activities such as milling, foraging, or
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
fighting and did not change their
behavior. In addition, two sea lions
approached within 20 m of active
vibratory pile driving activities. Three
harbor seals were observed within the
disturbance zone during pile driving
activities; none of them displayed
disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer
whales and three harbor porpoise were
also observed within the Level B
harassment zone during pile driving.
The killer whales were travelling or
milling while all harbor porpoises were
travelling. No signs of disturbance were
noted for either of these species. Given
the similarities in species, activities,
and habitat, we expect similar
behavioral responses of marine
mammals to the ADOT’s specified
activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is
likely to be temporary and localized
(e.g., small area movements).
Monitoring reports from other recent
pile driving and DTH projects in Alaska
have observed similar behaviors, for
example, the Biorka Island Dock
Replacement Project (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-faabiorka-island-dock-replacement-projectsitka-ak).
Stress responses—An animal’s
perception of a threat may be sufficient
to trigger stress responses consisting of
some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system
responses, neuroendocrine responses, or
immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950;
Moberg 2000). In many cases, an
animal’s first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs)
response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous
system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity.
These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a
significant long-term effect on an
animal’s fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often
involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are
affected by stress—including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism,
and behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction,
altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance
(e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000).
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticoids are also equated with
stress (Romano et al. 2004).
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response.
During a stress response, an animal uses
glycogen stores that can be quickly
replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the
stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when
an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic
costs of a stress response, energy
resources must be diverted from other
functions. This state of distress will last
until the animal replenishes its
energetic reserves sufficient to restore
normal function.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both
laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al. 1996; Hood et al.
1998; Jessop et al. 2003; Krausman et al.
2004; Lankford et al. 2005). Stress
responses due to exposure to
anthropogenic sounds or other stressors
and their effects on marine mammals
have also been reviewed (Fair and
Becker 2000; Romano et al. 2002b) and,
more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Romano et al. 2002a). For example,
Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise
reduction from reduced ship traffic in
the Bay of Fundy was associated with
decreased stress in North Atlantic right
whales. These and other studies lead to
a reasonable expectation that some
marine mammals will experience
physiological stress responses upon
exposure to acoustic stressors and that
it is possible that some of these would
be classified as ‘‘distress.’’ In addition,
any animal experiencing TTS would
likely also experience stress responses
(NRC 2003), however distress is an
unlikely result of this project based on
observations of marine mammals during
previous, similar projects in the area.
Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior
through masking, or interfering with, an
animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of
interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions,
prey detection, predator avoidance,
navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995).
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
and at similar or higher intensity, and
may occur whether the sound is natural
(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic
exploration) in origin. The ability of a
noise source to mask biologically
important sounds depends on the
characteristics of both the noise source
and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
noise ratio, temporal variability,
direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g.,
sensitivity, frequency range, critical
ratios, frequency discrimination,
directional discrimination, age or TTS
hearing loss), and existing ambient
noise and propagation conditions.
Masking of natural sounds can result
when human activities produce high
levels of background sound at
frequencies important to marine
mammals. Conversely, if the
background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind
and high waves), an anthropogenic
sound source would not be detectable as
far away as would be possible under
quieter conditions and would itself be
masked.
Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds
that occur near the project site could be
exposed to airborne sounds associated
with pile driving and removal and DTH
that have the potential to cause
behavioral harassment, depending on
their distance from these activities.
Cetaceans are not expected to be
exposed to airborne sounds that would
result in harassment as defined under
the MMPA.
Airborne noise would primarily be an
issue for pinnipeds that are swimming
or hauled out near the project site
within the range of noise levels elevated
above the acoustic criteria. We
recognize that pinnipeds in the water
could be exposed to airborne sound that
may result in behavioral harassment
when looking with their heads above
water. Most likely, airborne sound
would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in
relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could
cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit
changes in their normal behavior, such
as reduction in vocalizations, or cause
them to temporarily abandon the area
and move further from the source.
However, these animals would
previously have been ‘taken’ because of
exposure to underwater sound above the
behavioral harassment thresholds,
which are in all cases larger than those
associated with airborne sound. Thus,
the behavioral harassment of these
animals is already accounted for in
these estimates of potential take.
Therefore, we do not believe that
authorization of incidental take
resulting from airborne sound for
pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne
sound is not discussed further here.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
ADOT’s proposed activities at the
project area would not result in
permanent negative impacts to habitats
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
5995
used directly by marine mammals, but
may have potential short-term impacts
to food sources such as forage fish and
may affect acoustic habitat (see masking
discussion above). There are no known
foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom
structure of significant biological
importance to marine mammals present
in the marine waters of the project area
during the construction window, but
there are times of increased foraging
during periods of forage fish and
salmonid spawning. ADOT’s
construction activities in Tongass
Narrows could have localized,
temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat and their prey by increasing inwater sound pressure levels and slightly
decreasing water quality. Increased
noise levels may affect acoustic habitat
(see masking discussion above) and
adversely affect marine mammal prey in
the vicinity of the project area (see
discussion below). During DTH, impact
and vibratory pile driving or removal,
elevated levels of underwater noise
would ensonify a portion of Tongass
Narrows and nearby waters where both
fishes and mammals occur and could
affect foraging success. Additionally,
marine mammals may avoid the area
during construction, however,
displacement due to noise is expected to
be temporary and is not expected to
result in long-term effects to the
individuals or populations.
Construction activities are of short
duration and would likely have
temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat through increases in underwater
and airborne sound.
The area likely impacted by the
project includes much of Tongass
Narrows, but overall this area is
relatively small compared to the
available habitat in the surrounding area
including Revillagigedo Channel, Behm
Canal, and Clarence Strait. Pile
installation/removal and DTH may
temporarily increase turbidity resulting
from suspended sediments. Any
increases would be temporary,
localized, and minimal. In general,
turbidity associated with pile
installation is localized to about a 25-ft
radius around the pile (Everitt et al.
1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be
close enough to the project pile driving
areas to experience effects of turbidity,
and pinnipeds could avoid localized
areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact
from increased turbidity levels is
expected to minimal for marine
mammals. Furthermore, pile driving
and removal at the project site would
not obstruct movements or migration of
marine mammals.
In-water Construction Effects on
Potential Prey—Construction activities
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
5996
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
would produce continuous (i.e.,
vibratory pile driving and DTH) and
intermittent (i.e. impact driving and
DTH) sounds. Sound may affect marine
mammals through impacts on the
abundance, behavior, or distribution of
prey species (e.g., crustaceans,
cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine
mammal prey varies by species, season,
and location. Here, we describe studies
regarding the effects of noise on known
marine mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and
components of sound in their
environment to perform important
functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g.,
Zelick and Mann 1999; Fay 2009).
Depending on their hearing anatomy
and peripheral sensory structures,
which vary among species, fishes hear
sounds using pressure and particle
motion sensitivity capabilities and
detect the motion of surrounding water
(Fay et al. 2008). The potential effects of
noise on fishes depends on the
overlapping frequency range, distance
from the sound source, water depth of
exposure, and species-specific hearing
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology.
Key impacts to fishes may include
behavioral responses, hearing damage,
barotrauma (pressure-related injuries),
and mortality.
Fish react to sounds that are
especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds. Short duration,
sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle
changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. The reaction of fish to
noise depends on the physiological state
of the fish, past exposures, motivation
(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and
other environmental factors. Hastings
and Popper (2005) identified several
studies that suggest fish may relocate to
avoid certain areas of sound energy.
Additional studies have documented
effects of pile driving on fish; several are
based on studies in support of large,
multiyear bridge construction projects
(e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 2002;
Popper and Hastings 2009). Several
studies have demonstrated that impulse
sounds might affect the distribution and
behavior of some fishes, potentially
impacting foraging opportunities or
increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell
and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al.
1992; Skalski et al. 1992; Santulli et al.
1999; Paxton et al. 2017). However,
some studies have shown no or slight
reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et
al. 2013; Wardle et al. 2001; Jorgenson
and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al. 2012).
SPLs of sufficient strength have been
known to cause injury to fish and fish
mortality. However, in most fish
species, hair cells in the ear
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
continuously regenerate and loss of
auditory function likely is restored
when damaged cells are replaced with
new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a)
showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was
recoverable within 24 hours for one
species. Impacts would be most severe
when the individual fish is close to the
source and when the duration of
exposure is long. Injury caused by
barotrauma can range from slight to
severe and can cause death, and is most
likely for fish with swim bladders.
Barotrauma injuries have been
documented during controlled exposure
to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al.
2012b; Casper et al. 2013).
The most likely impact to fish from
pile driving and removal and DTH
activities at the project area would be
temporary behavioral avoidance of the
area. The duration of fish avoidance of
this area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal
recruitment, distribution and behavior
is anticipated. Any behavioral
avoidance by fish of the disturbed area
would still leave significantly large
areas of fish and marine mammal
foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in
Revillagigedo Channel, Behm Canal,
and Clarence Strait. Additionally, the
City of Ketchikan within Tongass
Narrows has a busy industrial water
front, and human impact lessens the
value of the area as foraging habitat.
There are times of known seasonal
marine mammal foraging in Tongass
Narrows around fish processing/
hatchery infrastructure or when fish are
congregating, but the impacted areas of
Tongass Narrows are a small portion of
the total foraging habitat available in the
region. In general, impacts to marine
mammal prey species are expected to be
minor and temporary due to the short
timeframe of the project.
Construction activities, in the form of
increased turbidity, have the potential
to adversely affect eulachon, herring,
and juvenile salmonid outmigratory
routes in the project area. Salmon and
forage fish, like eulachon and herring,
form a significant prey base for Steller
sea lions and are major components of
the diet of many other marine mammal
species that occur in the project area.
Increased turbidity is expected to occur
only in the immediate vicinity of
construction activities and to dissipate
quickly with tidal cycles. Given the
limited area affected and high tidal
dilution rates any effects on fish are
expected to be minor.
Additionally, the presence of
transient killer whales means some
marine mammal species are also
possible prey (harbor seals, harbor
porpoises). ADOT’s pile driving, pile
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
removal and DTH activities are expected
to result in limited instances of take by
Level B and Level A harassment on
these smaller marine mammals. That, as
well as the fact that ADOT is impacting
a small portion of the total available
marine mammal habitat means that
there would be minimal impact on these
marine mammals as prey.
In summary, given the short daily
duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving and DTH events
and the small area being affected
relative to available nearby habitat, pile
driving and DTH activities associated
with the proposed action are not likely
to have a permanent, adverse effect on
any fish habitat, or populations of fish
species or other prey. Thus, we
conclude that impacts of the specified
activity are not likely to have more than
short-term adverse effects on any prey
habitat or populations of prey species.
Further, any impacts to marine mammal
habitat are not expected to result in
significant or long-term consequences
for individual marine mammals, or to
contribute to adverse impacts on their
populations.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and
the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as use of the
acoustic sources (i.e., impact and
vibratory pile driving and DTH) have
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
mysticetes, high frequency species and
phocids because predicted auditory
injury zones are larger than for midfrequency species and otariids. Auditory
injury is unlikely to occur for midfrequency species and otariids. The
proposed mitigation and monitoring
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
5997
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
measures are expected to minimize the
severity of such taking to the extent
practicable.
As described previously, no mortality
is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take
by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of
activities. We note that while these
basic factors can contribute to a basic
calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional
information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we
describe the factors considered here in
more detail and present the proposed
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).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et al.
2007, Ellison et al. 2012). Based on what
the available science indicates and the
practical need to use a threshold based
on a factor that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS
uses a generalized acoustic threshold
based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals are likely
to be behaviorally harassed in a manner
we consider Level B harassment when
exposed to underwater anthropogenic
noise above received levels of 120 dB re
1 microPascal (mPa) (root mean square
(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory
pile-driving, DTH) and above 160 dB re
1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive
(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent
(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. This take
estimation includes disruption of
behavioral patterns resulting directly in
response to noise exposure (e.g.,
avoidance), as well as that resulting
indirectly from associated impacts such
as TTS or masking. ADOT’s proposed
activity includes the use of continuous
(vibratory pile driving/removal and
DTH) and impulsive (impact pile
driving and DTH) sources, and therefore
both the 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms)
thresholds are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
dual criteria to assess auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to five different
marine mammal groups (based on
hearing sensitivity) as a result of
exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). ADOT’s proposed activity
includes the use of impulsive (impact
pile driving and DTH) and nonimpulsive (vibratory pile driving/
removal and DTH) sources.
These thresholds are provided in
Table 4 below. 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-technicalguidance.
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.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
The sound field in the project area is
the existing background noise plus
additional construction noise from the
proposed project. Marine mammals are
expected to be affected via sound
generated by the primary components of
the project (i.e., impact pile driving,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile
removal, and DTH).
In order to calculate distances to the
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment sound thresholds for the
methods and piles being used in this
project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring
data from other locations to develop
source levels for the various pile types,
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
5998
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
sizes and methods (Table 5). Note that
piles of differing sizes have different
sound source levels (SSLs).
Empirical data from recent ADOT
sound source verification (SSV) studies
at Ketchikan were used to estimate SSLs
for vibratory and impact driving of 30inch steel pipe piles (Denes et al. 2016).
Data from Ketchikan was used because
of its proximity to this proposed project
in Tongass Narrows. However, the use
of data from Alaska sites was not
appropriate in all instances. Details are
described below.
For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel
piles, data from a Navy pile driving
project in the Puget Sound, WA was
reviewed (Navy 2015). From this
review, ADOT determined the Navy’s
suggested source value of 161 dB rms
was an appropriate proxy source value,
and NMFS concurs. Because the source
value of smaller piles of the same
general type (steel in this case) are not
expected to exceed a larger pile, the
same 161 dB rms source value was used
for 20-inch steel piles. This assumption
conforms with source values presented
in Navy (2015) for a project using 16inch steel piles at Naval Base Kitsap in
Bangor, WA.
ADOT used source values of 177 dB
SEL and 190 dB rms for impact driving
of 24-inch and 20-inch steel piles. These
values were determined based on
summary values presented in Caltrans
(2015) for impact driving of 24-inch
steel piles. NMFS concurs that the same
source value was an acceptable proxy
for impact driving of 20-inch steel piles.
Sound pressure levels in the water
column resulting from DTH are not well
studied. Because DTH hole creation
includes both impulsive and continuous
components, NMFS guidance currently
recommends that it be treated as a
continuous sound for Level B
calculations and as an impulsive sound
for Level A calculations (Table 11). In
the absence of data specific to different
hole sizes, current NMFS guidance
recommends that calculation of Level B
zones for DTH use the same continuous
SSL of 167 dB SEL for all hole sizes
(Heyvaert and Reyff 2021).
Recommended SSLs for 30-inch and 24inch holes as well as 8-inch holes for
tension anchors and micropiles for use
in the calculation of Level A harassment
thresholds are provided by current
NMFS guidance and in Table 5.
TABLE 5—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE
INSTALLATION, DTH, AND VIBRATORY PILE REMOVAL
Method and pile type
Vibratory hammer
SSL at 10 m
dB rms
30-inch steel piles ................................................
162
Denes et al. 2016.
24-inch steel piles ................................................
161
Navy 2015.
20-inch steel piles ................................................
161
Navy 2015.
DTH of rock sockets and tension anchors
dB rms
All pile diameters .................................................
Literature source
167
Heyvaert and Reyff 2021.
DTH of rock sockets and tension anchors
dB SELss
dB peak
30-inch rock socket .............................................
164
194
Reyff and Heyvaert 2019; Reyff 2020; Denes et al. 2016.
24-inch rock socket .............................................
159
184
Heyvaert and Reyff 2021.
8-inch tension anchor/micropile ...........................
144
170
Reyff 2020.
Impact hammer
dB rms
dB SEL
dB peak
30-inch steel piles ................................................
195
181
209
Denes et al. 2016.
24-inch steel piles ................................................
190
177
203
Caltrans 2015.
20-inch steel piles ................................................
190
177
202
Caltrans 2015.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Note: It is assumed that noise levels during pile installation and removal are similar. SEL = sound exposure level; dB peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean
square.
Simultaneous use of two impact,
vibratory, or DTH hammers, or any
combination of those equipment, could
occur. Such occurrences are anticipated
to be infrequent, would be for short
durations on any given day, and ADOT
anticipates that no more than two
hammers would be operated
concurrently. Simultaneous use of two
hammers or DTH systems could occur at
the same project site, or at two different,
but nearby project sites. Simultaneous
use of hammers could result in
increased SPLs and harassment zone
sizes given the proximity of the
component driving sites and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
physical rules of decibel addition.
ADOT anticipates that concurrent use of
two hammers producing continuous
noise could occur on 44 days, which is
half the anticipated number of days of
construction (91 days) and represents
complete overlap between the two
contracts and/or represents use of two
hammers by a single contractor.
Although it is unlikely that overlap
would be complete, ADOT anticipates,
and NMFS concurs, this scenario
represents the potential worst case
scenario, given that a more accurate
estimate is not possible, and concurrent
operation of hammers would be
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
incidental. Given that the use of more
than one hammer for pile installation on
the same day (whether simultaneous or
not) would increase the number of piles
installed per day, this would be
anticipated to result in a reduction of
the total number of days of pile
installation. Table 6 shows how
potential scenarios would reduce the
total number of pile driving days and
weeks. However, as described in the
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Calculation and Estimation section
below, ADOT has conservatively
calculated take with the assumption that
pile driving would occur on all 91 days.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
5999
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
TABLE 6—CALCULATED REDUCTION OF PILE DRIVING DAYS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT DAYS WITH TWO
HAMMERS IN USE
Days of work
completed
during
overlap
(2 hammers)
Days of
overlap
Percent overlap
0 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
20 .........................................................................................
30 .........................................................................................
40 .........................................................................................
50 .........................................................................................
NMFS (2018b) handles overlapping
sound fields created by the use of more
than one hammer differently for
impulsive (impact hammer and Level A
harassment zones for drilling with a
DTH hammer) and continuous sound
sources (vibratory hammer and Level B
harassment zones for drilling with a
DTH hammer; Table 7) and differently
for impulsive sources with rapid
impulse rates of multiple strikes per
second (DTH) and slow impulse rates
(impact hammering) (NMFS 2021). It is
unlikely that the two impact hammers
would strike at the same instant, and
therefore, the SPLs would not be
adjusted regardless of the distance
between impact hammers. In this case,
each impact hammer would be
considered to have its own independent
0.0
9.1
18.2
27.3
36.4
45.5
Remaining
days of work
with single
hammer
0.0
18.2
36.4
54.6
72.8
91.0
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment zones.
When two DTH hammers operate
simultaneously their continuous sound
components overlap completely in time.
When the Level B isopleth of one DTH
sound source encompasses the isopleth
of another DTH sound source, the
sources are considered additive and
combined using the following rules
(Table 7). The method described below
was based on one created by
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) and has been
updated and modified by NMFS
(WSDOT 2020). For addition of two
simultaneous DTH hammers, the
difference between the two SSLs is
calculated, and if that difference is
between 0 and 1 dB, 3 dB are added to
Total number
of days
of work
91.0
72.8
54.6
36.4
18.2
0.0
Weeks
of work
91.0
81.9
72.8
63.7
54.6
45.5
15.2
13.7
12.1
10.6
9.1
7.6
the higher SSL; if difference is between
2 or 3 dB, 2 dB are added to the highest
SSL; if the difference is between 4 to 9
dB, 1 dB is added to the highest SSL;
and with differences of 10 or more
decibels, there is no addition.
When two continuous noise sources,
such as vibratory hammers, have
overlapping sound fields, there is
potential for higher sound levels than
for non-overlapping sources.
When two or more vibratory hammers
are used simultaneously, and the
isopleth of one sound source
encompasses the isopleth of another
sound source, the sources are
considered additive and source levels
are combined using the rules in Table 7,
similar to described above for DTH.
TABLE 7—RULES FOR COMBINING SOUND SOURCE LEVELS GENERATED DURING PILE INSTALLATION
Hammer types
Difference in SSL
Level A zones
Vibratory, Impact ....................................
Impact, Impact ........................................
Any ........................
Any ........................
Vibratory, Vibratory or DTH, DTH ..........
0 or 1 dB ...............
2 or 3 dB ...............
4 to 9 dB ...............
10 dB or more .......
Use impact zones ................................
Use zones for each pile size and number of strikes.
Add 3 dB to the higher source level ....
Add 2 dB to the higher source level ....
Add 1 dB to the higher source level ....
Add 0 dB to the higher source level ....
During pile driving, it is common for
pile installation to start and stop
multiple times as each pile is adjusted
and its progress is measured and
documented, though as stated above, for
short durations, it is anticipated that
Level B zones
multiple hammers could be in use
simultaneously. Following an approach
modified from WSDOT in their
Biological Assessment manual (WSDOT
2020) and described in Table 8, decibel
addition calculations were carried out
Use largest zone.
Use zone for each pile size.
Add
Add
Add
Add
3
2
1
0
dB
dB
dB
dB
to
to
to
to
the
the
the
the
higher
higher
higher
higher
source
source
source
source
level.
level.
level.
level.
for possible combinations of pile driving
and DTH throughout the project area.
The source levels included in Table 8
are used to estimate the Level A
harassment zones and the Level B
harassment zones.
TABLE 8—COMBINED SSLS (dB at 10 m) GENERATED DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL FOR COMBINATIONS OF
TWO PIECES OF EQUIPMENT: IMPACT HAMMER, VIBRATORY HAMMER, AND DOWN-THE-HOLE DRILL
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Vibratory (RMS)
Method
Pile diameter
SSL
20
24
DTH (RMS)
30
8
24
DTH (SEL)
30
8
24
30
161
161
162
167
167
167
144
159
164
Vibratory (RMS) ...............................
20
24
30
161
161
162
164
164
165
164
164
165
165
165
165
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
DTH (RMS) ......................................
8
167
168
168
168
170
170
170
............
............
............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
6000
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
TABLE 8—COMBINED SSLS (dB at 10 m) GENERATED DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL FOR COMBINATIONS OF
TWO PIECES OF EQUIPMENT: IMPACT HAMMER, VIBRATORY HAMMER, AND DOWN-THE-HOLE DRILL—Continued
Vibratory (RMS)
Method
Pile diameter
20
SSL
DTH (SEL) ........................................
24
DTH (RMS)
30
8
24
DTH (SEL)
30
8
24
30
161
161
162
167
167
167
144
159
164
24
30
167
167
168
168
168
168
168
168
170
170
170
170
170
170
............
............
............
............
............
............
8
24
30
144
159
164
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
147
159
164
159
162
165
164
165
167
No addition is warranted for impact
pile driving in combination with
vibratory or impact pile driving or DTH
(NMFS 2021).
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 ADOT’s
proposed activity in the absence of
specific modelling.
All Level B harassment isopleths are
reported in Table 9 and Table 10 below.
It should be noted that based on the
geography of Tongass Narrows and the
surrounding islands, sound would not
reach the full distance of the Level B
harassment isopleth in most directions.
Generally, due to interaction with land,
only a thin slice of the possible area is
ensonified to the full distance of the
Level B harassment isopleth.
The size of the Level B harassment
zone during concurrent operation of two
vibratory or DTH hammers would
depend on the combination of sound
sources and the decibel addition of two
hammers producing continuous noise.
Table 9 shows the distances to Level B
harassment isopleths during
simultaneous hammering from two
sources, based on the combined SSL.
Because the calculated Level B
harassment isopleths for two sources are
dependent upon the combined SSL, the
Level B harassment zone for each
combined sound source level included
in Table 9 is consistent, regardless of the
equipment combination. Please refer to
Table 8 to determine which sound
sources apply to each Combined SSL.
As noted previously, pile installation
often involves numerous stops and
starts of the hammer for each pile.
Therefore, decibel addition is applied
only when the adjacent continuous
sound sources experience overlapping
sound fields, which generally requires
close proximity of driving locations.
TABLE 9— LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR MULTIPLE VIBRATORY HAMMER ADDITIONS
Level B
harassment
isopleth
(m) a
Combined SSL
(dB)
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
8,577
10,000
11,659
13,594
15,849
18,478
21,544
a These larger zones are truncated to the southeast by islands, which prevent propagation of sound in that direction beyond the confines of
Tongass Narrows. To the northwest of Tongass Narrows, combined sound levels that exceed 167 dB rms extend into Clarence Strait before attenuating to sound levels that are anticipated to be below 120 dB rms.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
TABLE 10—LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR SINGLE HAMMER USE BY ACTIVITY AND PILE SIZE
Pile diameter
(inch)
Activity
Vibratory Installation ................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................
Vibratory Removal ...................................................................................................................................................
DTH Rock Sockets ..................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
30
24
20
24
30
Level B
harassment
isopleth
(m)
6,310
5,412
........................
........................
13,594
6001
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
TABLE 10—LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR SINGLE HAMMER USE BY ACTIVITY AND PILE SIZE—Continued
Pile diameter
(inch)
Activity
DTH Tension Anchor/Micropile ................................................................................................................................
Impact Installation ....................................................................................................................................................
Level A Harassment Zones
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:46 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
to be overestimates of some degree,
which may result in some degree of
overestimate of takes by Level A
harassment. However, these tools offer
the best way to predict appropriate
isopleths when more sophisticated 3D
modeling methods are not available, and
NMFS continues to develop ways to
quantitatively refine these tools, and
will qualitatively address the output
where appropriate. For stationary
sources such as pile driving or removal
and DTH using any of the methods
discussed above, NMFS User
Spreadsheet predicts the closest
distance at which, if a marine mammal
remained at that distance the whole
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
24
8
30
24
20
Level B
harassment
isopleth
(m)
........................
........................
2,154
1,000
1,000
duration of the activity, it would incur
PTS. Inputs used in the User
Spreadsheet are reported in Table 11
and Table 12, and the resulting
isopleths are reported below in Table 13
and Table 14. Pile installation and
removal can occur at variable rates, from
a few minutes one day to many hours
the next. ADOT anticipates that one
permanent pile would be installed per
day on 27 non-consecutive days, two
temporary piles would be installed per
day on 10 non-consecutive days, and
two temporary piles would be removed
per day on 10 days.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
6002
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Regarding implications for Level A
harassment zones when two vibratory
hammers are operating concurrently,
given the small size of the estimated
Level A harassment isopleths for all
hearing groups during vibratory pile
driving, the zone of any two hammers
would not be expected to overlap.
Therefore, compounding effects of
multiple vibratory hammers operating
concurrently are not anticipated, and
NMFS has treated each source
independently.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
Regarding implications for Level A
harassment zones when one vibratory
hammer and one DTH hammer are
operating concurrently, combining
isopleths for these sources is difficult
for a variety of reasons. First, vibratory
pile driving relies upon non-impulsive
PTS thresholds, while DTH/rock
hammers use impulsive thresholds.
Second, vibratory pile driving account
for the duration to drive a pile, while
DTH account for strikes per pile. Thus,
it is difficult to measure sound on the
same scale and combine isopleths from
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
these impulsive and non-impulsive,
continuous sources. Therefore, NMFS
has treated each source independently
at this time.
Regarding the operation of two DTH
hammers concurrently, since DTH
hammers are capable of multiple strikes
per second, there is potential for
multiple DTH/rock hammer sources’
isopleths to overlap in space and time
(a higher strike rate indicates a greater
potential for overlap). Therefore, NMFS
has calculated distances to Level A
harassment isopleths, by hearing group
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
EN02FE22.002
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
6003
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
of another DTH sound source, the
sources are considered additive and
combined using the rules in Table 7 as
described above. The number of piles
per day is altered to reflect only a single
pile for all those that overlap in space
for simultaneous use of two DTH
hammers (Table 14), using NMFS’ User
Spreadsheet. The inputs for these
calculations are outlined in Table 12.
When the Level A isopleth of one DTH
sound source encompasses the isopleth
and time (i.e., no double counting of
overlapping piles). The maximum strike
rate and duration of the two DTH
systems is used in the User Spreadsheet
calculations.
TABLE 12—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS FOR SIMULTANEOUS USE OF TWO DTH HAMMERS
E.2) DTH
pile driving
Spreadsheet tab used
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) .....................................................................................................................................................
SSL (dB SEL at 10m): a
8-in pile/8-in pile ...........................................................................................................................................................................
8-in pile, 24-in pile ........................................................................................................................................................................
8-in pile, 30-in pile ........................................................................................................................................................................
24-in pile, 24-in pile ......................................................................................................................................................................
24-in pile, 30-in pile ......................................................................................................................................................................
30-in pile, 30-in pile ......................................................................................................................................................................
Activity duration (minutes) within 24 hours b .......................................................................................................................................
Number of piles per day b ....................................................................................................................................................................
Strike rate (strikes per second) ...........................................................................................................................................................
2
147
159
164
162
165
167
240
1
c 15 or 25.83
a SSL
reflects the combined SSLs calculated in Table 8.
anticipates that DTH could occur at one site for up to 10 hours (600 minutes) per day, and overlap between two sites could occur for
up to 4 hours (240 minutes) per day. Since the potential overlap in sources is accounted for in the SSL adjustment, and the total potential duration (even with two hammers) is accounted for in the ‘‘Activity duration (minutes) within 24 hours,’’ the ‘‘Number of piles per day’’ is assumed to
be 1.
c 25.83 for combinations that include 8-in piles. 15 for all other combinations.
b ADOT
than those based on Peak SPL (for both
single hammer use and simultaneous
use of two hammers). It should be noted
that there is a duration component
when calculating the Level A
harassment isopleth based on SELcum,
and this duration depends on the
number of piles that would be driven in
a day and strikes per pile. For some
activities, ADOT has proposed to drive
Level A harassment thresholds for
impulsive sound sources (impact pile
driving and DTH) are defined for both
SELcum and Peak SPL with the
threshold that results in the largest
modeled isopleth for each marine
mammal hearing group used to establish
the Level A harassment isopleth. In this
project, Level A harassment isopleths
based on SELcum were always larger
variable numbers of piles per day
throughout the project (See ‘‘Average
Piles per Day (Range)’’ in Table 1), and
determine at the beginning of each pile
driving day, the maximum number or
duration piles would be driven that day.
Here, this flexibility has been accounted
for by modeling multiple durations for
the activity, and determining the
relevant isopleths.
TABLE 13—DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS, BY HEARING GROUP, AND AREA OF LEVEL A HARASSMENT
ZONES, FOR SINGLE HAMMER USE DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL
Activity
Minutes per
pile or strikes
per pile
Pile
diameter(s)
Vibratory Installation ................
30
b 24
20
24
30
Vibratory Removal ...................
DTH Rock Sockets ..................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
24
DTH Tension Anchor ...............
8
Impact Installation ....................
30
24
20
a Please
60 minutes .....
60 minutes .....
60 minutes .....
60 minutes .....
60 minutes .....
300 minutes ...
600 minutes ...
60 minutes .....
300 minutes ...
600 minutes ...
120 minutes ...
240 minutes ...
50 strikes .......
50 strikes .......
50 strikes .......
Level A harassment isopleth
(m)
LF
8
7
7
7
773
2,258
3,584
359
1,048
1,664
82
130
100
54
54
MF
1
1
1
1
28
81
128
13
38
60
3
5
4
2
2
HF
12
11
11
11
920
2,690
4,269
427
1,249
1,982
98
155
119
65
65
PW
5
5
5
5
414
1,209
1,918
192
561
891
44
70
54
29
29
refer to Table 6–4 of ADOT’s IHA application for hearing group-specific areas.
vibratory installation and removal.
b Includes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
OW
1
1
1
1
31
88
140
15
41
65
4
6
4
3
3
Level A
harassment
areas (km2)
all hearing
groups a
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.9
<3.5
<6.6
<0.2
<1.4
<2.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
6004
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
TABLE 14—DISTANCES TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS, BY HEARING GROUP FOR SIMULTANEOUS USE OF TWO
DTH HAMMERS
Level A harassment isopleth (m)
Activity combination
LF
8-in pile, 8-in pile .................................................................
8-in pile, 24-in pile ...............................................................
8-in pile, 30-in pile ...............................................................
24-in pile, 24-in pile .............................................................
24-in pile, 30-in ....................................................................
30-in pile, 30-in pile .............................................................
Regarding implications for impact
hammers used in combination with a
vibratory hammer or DTH drill, the
likelihood of these multiple sources’
isopleths to completely overlap in time
is slim primarily because impact pile
driving is intermittent. Furthermore,
non-impulsive, continuous sources rely
upon non-impulsive TTS/PTS
thresholds, while impact pile driving
uses impulsive thresholds, making it
difficult to calculate isopleths that may
overlap from impact driving and the
simultaneous action of a non-impulsive
continuous source or one with multiple
strikes per second. Thus, with such slim
potential for multiple different sources’
isopleths to overlap in space and time,
specifications should be entered as
‘‘normal’’ into the User Spreadsheet for
each individual source separately.
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.
Additionally, we describe how the
occurrence information is brought
together to produce a quantitative take
estimate for each phase. A summary of
proposed take, including as a percentage
of population for each of the species, is
shown in Table 15.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lion abundance in the
Tongass Narrows area is not well
known. No systematic studies of Steller
sea lions have been conducted in or
near the Tongass Narrows area. Steller
sea lions are known to occur year-round
and local residents report observing
Steller sea lions approximately once or
twice per week (based on
communication outlined in Section 6 of
ADOT’s IHA application). Abundance
appears to increase during herring runs
(March to May) and salmon runs (July
to September). Group sizes may reach
up to 6 to 10 individuals (Freitag 2017
as cited in 83 FR 37473; August 1,
2018), though groups of up to 80
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
MF
206
1,297
2,796
1,431
2,268
3,084
HF
7
46
99
51
81
110
individuals have been observed (HDR,
Inc. 2003).
ADOT conservatively estimates that
one group of 10 Steller sea lions may be
present in the project area each day, but
this occurrence rate may as much as
double (20 Steller sea lions per day)
during periods of increased abundance
associated with the herring and salmon
runs (March to May and July to
September). Therefore, ADOT
anticipates that two large groups (20
individuals) may be taken by Level B
harassment each day during these
months. To be conservative, we assume
all 91 days of work could be completed
during these months of increased
abundance and thus estimate 1,820
potential takes by Level B harassment of
Steller sea lions in Tongass Narrows
(i.e., 2 groups of 10 sea lions per day ×
91 construction days = 1,820 takes by
Level B harassment; Table 15).
ADOT estimates that simultaneous
use of two hammers (any combination)
could occur on up to 44 days during the
project. On those days, Level B
harassment zones would extend into
Clarence Strait. Steller sea lions are
known to swim across Clarence Strait
and to use offshore areas with deeper
waters, although no estimates of at-sea
density or abundance in Clarence Strait
are available. Therefore, ADOT has
conservatively estimated, and NMFS
concurs, that during the 44 days with
potential simultaneous use of two
hammers, a group of 10 Steller sea lions
may occur in the portion of the Level B
harassment zone in Clarence Strait each
day (one group of 10 sea lions per day
× 44 days = 440 individuals). Therefore,
the preliminary sum of estimated takes
by Level B harassment of Steller sea
lions between Tongass Narrows and
Clarence Strait is 2,260 (1,820 + 440 =
2,260 takes by Level B harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone
for otariid pinnipeds could extend 140
m from the noise source for 10 hours of
DTH using a single hammer, or 120 m
from the noise source for 4 hours of
DTH using two hammers for 30-in piles
simultaneously. (As noted previously,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
PW
245
1,545
3,329
1,705
2,702
3,673
OW
110
694
1,496
766
1,214
1,650
8
51
109
56
88
120
ADOT estimates that simultaneous use
of any two hammer types would occur
on no more than 44 days). Zones for
shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). For some
DTH activities, the estimated Level A
harassment zone is larger than the
proposed shutdown zone, and therefore,
some Level A harassment could occur.
Further, while unlikely, it is possible
that a Steller sea lion could enter a
shutdown zone without detection given
the various obstructions along the
shoreline, and remain in the zone long
enough to be taken by Level A
harassment before being observed and a
shutdown occurring. ADOT therefore
requests, and NMFS proposes to
authorize, one take by Level A
harassment on each of the 91
construction days (91 takes by Level A
harassment). Take by Level B
harassment proposed for authorization
was calculated as the total calculated
Steller sea lion takes by Level B
harassment minus the takes by Level A
harassment (2,260 takes¥91 takes by
Level A harassment) for a total of 2,169
takes by Level B harassment. Therefore,
ADOT requests, and NMFS proposes to
authorize, 91 takes of Steller sea lion by
Level A harassment and 2,169 takes of
Steller sea lion by Level B harassment
(2,260 total takes of Steller sea lion;
Table 15).
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. They are known to occur yearround with little seasonal variation in
abundance (Freitag 2017 as cited in 83
FR 37473; August 1, 2018) 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. NMFS has
indicated that the maximum group size
in Tongass Narrows is three individuals
(83 FR 22009; May 11, 2018); however,
ADOT monitoring in March 2021
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
observed several groups of up to 5
individuals. Based on this knowledge,
the expected maximum group size in
Tongass Narrows is five individuals.
Harbor seals are known to be curious
and may approach novel activity. For
these reasons ADOT conservatively
estimates that up to two groups of 5
harbor seals per group could be taken by
Level B harassment due to projectrelated underwater noise each
construction day for a total of 910 takes
by Level B harassment of harbor seal in
Tongass Narrows (i.e., 2 groups of 5
harbor seals per day × 91 construction
days = 910 total takes by Level B
harassment of harbor seal; Table 15).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of two hammers (any
combination) could occur on up to 44
days during the project. On those days,
Level B harassment zones would extend
into Clarence Strait. Harbor seals are
known to swim across Clarence Strait,
although no estimates of at-sea density
or abundance in Clarence Strait are
available. It is likely that harbor seal
abundance in Clarence Strait is lower
than in Tongass Narrows, as harbor
seals generally prefer nearshore waters.
Therefore, ADOT has conservatively
estimated, and NMFS concurs, that
during the 44 days with potential
simultaneous use of two hammers, a
group of 5 harbor seals may occur in the
portion of the Level B harassment zone
in Clarence Strait each day (one group
of 5 harbor seals per day × 44 days = 220
individuals). Therefore, the sum of total
estimated takes by Level B harassment
of harbor seals between Tongass
Narrows and Clarence Strait is 1,130
(910 + 220 = 1,130 takes by Level B
harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone
for harbor seals could extend 1,918 m
from the noise source for 10 hours of
DTH using a single hammer, or 1,640 m
from the noise source for 4 hours of
DTH using two hammers for 30-in piles
simultaneously. (As noted previously,
ADOT estimates that simultaneous use
of any two hammer types would occur
on no more than 44 days). Zones for
shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). Due to
practicability concerns, NMFS proposes
to require a 200 m shutdown zone for
harbor seals during 24-in and 30-in DTH
activities (Table 16). Therefore, for some
DTH activities, the estimated Level A
harassment zone is larger than the
proposed shutdown zone, and therefore,
some Level A harassment could occur.
Harbor seals may enter and remain
within the area between the Level A
harassment zone and the shutdown
zone for a duration long enough to be
taken by Level A harassment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
Additionally, while unlikely, it is
possible that a harbor seal could enter
a shutdown zone without detection
given the various obstructions along the
shoreline, and remain in the zone for a
duration long enough to be taken by
Level A harassment before being
observed and a shutdown occurring.
To calculate take by Level A
harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A
harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using
a single hammer minus the shutdown
zone isopleth (1,918 m¥200 m
shutdown zone = 1,718 m) to the Level
B harassment zone isopleth (13,594 m;
1,718 m/13,594 m = 0.1264). ADOT
multiplied the resulting ratio by the
total potential take in Tongass Narrows,
resulting in 116 takes by Level A
harassment (i.e., 910 takes by Level B
harassment × 0.1264 = 116 takes by
Level A harassment). NMFS reviewed,
and concurs with and adopts this
method. (Potential operation of two
DTH hammers for 24-in/30-in or 30-in/
30-in pile combinations would result in
larger Level A harassment isopleths
than 1,918 m, however, such concurrent
work would rarely occur, if at all, and
therefore, NMFS expects that
calculating Level A harassment take
using those zones would be overly
conservative and unrealistic. Moreover,
since the method used above assumes
30-inch DTH on all days it provided a
precautionary cushion since activities
with smaller Level A harassment zone
sizes will occur on many days.) Take by
Level B harassment proposed for
authorization was calculated as the total
calculated harbor seal takes by Level B
harassment minus the takes by Level A
harassment (1,130 takes¥116 takes by
Level A harassment) for a total of 1,014
takes by Level B harassment. ADOT
therefore requests, and NMFS proposes
to authorize, 116 takes of harbor seal by
Level A harassment and 1,014 takes of
harbor seal by Level B harassment
(1,130 total takes of harbor seal, Table
15).
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory;
therefore, our 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). ADOT’s 2020 and 2021
monitoring program in Tongass Narrows
did not result in sightings of this
species; however, ADOT assumes an
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
6005
occurrence rate of one group per month
in the following take estimations. For
our analysis, we are considering a group
to consist of five animals. Based on
Freitag (2017), and supported by the
reports of knowledgeable locals as
described in ADOT’s application, ADOT
estimates that one group of five harbor
porpoises could enter Tongass Narrows
and potentially taken by Level B
harassment due to project-related noise
each month for a total of 15 potential
harbor porpoise takes by Level B
harassment in Tongass Narrows (i.e., 1
group of 5 individuals × 3 months (91
days) = 15 harbor porpoises).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of two hammers (any
combination) could occur on up to 44
days during the project. On those days,
the Level B harassment zone would
extend into Clarence Strait. Harbor
porpoises are known to swim across
Clarence Strait and to use other areas of
deep, open waters. Dahlheim et al.
(2015) estimated a density of 0.02
harbor porpoises/km2 in an area that
encompasses Clarence Strait. ADOT
estimates, and NMFS concurs that
during the 44 days with potential
simultaneous use of two hammers, 17
harbor porpoises (0.02 harbor porpoises/
km2 × 18.5 km2 × 44 days = 17 harbor
porpoises) may occur in the portion of
the Level B harassment zone in Clarence
Strait during the project (though ADOT
and NMFS anticipate that this is a
conservative estimate, given the entire
18.5 km2 area would rarely be
ensonified above the Level B
harassment threshold). Therefore, the
sum of total estimated takes by Level B
harassment of harbor porpoise between
Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait is
32 (15 + 17 = 32 takes by Level B
harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone
for harbor porpoises extends 4,269 m
from the noise source for 10 hours of
DTH using a single hammer, and 3,673
m from the noise source for 4 hours of
DTH using two hammers for 30-in piles
simultaneously. (As noted previously,
ADOT estimates that simultaneous use
of any two hammer types would occur
on no more than 44 days). Zones for
shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). Due to
practicability concerns, NMFS proposes
to require a 500 m shutdown zone for
high frequency cetaceans during 24-in
and 30-in DTH activities. Therefore, for
some DTH activities, the estimated
Level A harassment zone is larger than
the proposed shutdown zone, and
therefore, some Level A harassment
could occur. Harbor porpoises may
enter and remain within the area
between the Level A harassment zone
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
6006
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
and the shutdown zone for a duration
long enough to be taken by Level A
harassment. Additionally, given the
large size of required shutdown zones
for some activities and the cryptic
nature of harbor porpoises, it is possible
that a harbor porpoise could enter a
shutdown zone without detection and
remain in the zone for a duration long
enough to be taken by Level A
harassment before being observed and a
shutdown occurring.
To calculate take by Level A
harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A
harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using
a single hammer minus the shutdown
zone isopleth (4,269 m¥500 m = 3,769
m) to the Level B harassment zone
isopleth (13,594 m; 3,769/13,594 =
0.2773). ADOT multiplied the resulting
ratio by the total potential take in
Tongass Narrows, resulting in 5 takes by
Level A harassment (i.e., 15 takes by
Level B harassment × 0.2773 = 5 takes
by Level A harassment). NMFS
reviewed and concurs with this method.
(Potential operation of two DTH
hammers for 24-in/30-in or 30-in/30-in
pile combinations would result in larger
Level A harassment isopleths than 4,269
m, however, such concurrent work
would rarely occur, if at all, and
therefore, as described above, NMFS
expects that calculating Level A
harassment take using those zones is
unnecessary.) Take by Level B
harassment proposed for authorization
was calculated as the total calculated
harbor porpoise takes by Level B
harassment minus the takes by Level A
harassment (32 takes¥5 takes by Level
A harassment) for a total of 27 takes by
Level B harassment. ADOT therefore
requests and NMFS proposes to
authorize 5 takes by Level A harassment
and 27 takes by Level B harassment (32
total takes of harbor porpoise, Table 15).
Dall’s Porpoise
Dall’s porpoises are expected to only
occur in the project area a few times per
year. Their relative rarity is supported
by Jefferson et al.’s (2019) presentation
of historical survey data showing very
few sightings in the Ketchikan area and
conclusion that Dall’s porpoise
generally are rare in narrow waterways,
like the Tongass Narrows. ADOT’s
monitoring program from 2020 and 2021
recorded one sighting of 6 individuals
over 23 days of observation, 16 days of
observations with no sightings, and two
sightings of 10 individuals in 14 days of
observation; this equates to one sighting
every approximately 17 days (DOT&PF
2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d) or
approximately two sightings per month.
This species is non-migratory; therefore,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:21 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
the occurrence estimates are not
dependent on season. ADOT anticipates
that one large Dall’s porpoise pod (12
individuals) may be present in the
project area and exposed to project
related underwater noise twice each
month during 3 months of construction
(91 days rounded to 3 months) for a
total of 72 potential takes by Level B
harassment in Tongass Narrows (i.e.,2
groups of 12 Dall’s porpoises per month
× 3 months = 72 potential takes by Level
B harassment).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of two hammers (any
combination) could occur on up to 44
days during the project. On those days,
the Level B harassment zone would
extend into Clarence Strait, where Dall’s
porpoises are known to occur. Jefferson
et al. (2019) estimated an average
density of 0.19 Dall’s porpoises/km2 in
Southeast Alaska. ADOT estimates, and
NMFS concurs, that during the 44 days
with potential simultaneous use of two
hammers, 155 Dall’s porpoises (0.19
Dall’s porpoises/km2 × 18.5 km2 × 44
days = 155 Dall’s porpoises) may occur
in the portion of the Level B harassment
zone in Clarence Strait during the
project (though ADOT and NMFS
anticipate that this is a conservative
estimate, given the entire 18.5 km2 area
would rarely be ensonified above the
Level B harassment threshold).
Therefore, the sum of total estimated
takes by Level B harassment of harbor
porpoise between Tongass Narrows and
Clarence Strait is 227 (72 + 155 = 227
takes by Level B harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone
for Dall’s porpoises extends 4,269 m
from the noise source for 10 hours of
DTH using a single hammer, and m from
the noise source for 4 hours of DTH
using two hammers for 30-in piles
simultaneously. (As noted previously,
ADOT estimates that simultaneous use
of any two hammer types would occur
on no more than 44 days). Zones for
shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). Due to
practicability concerns, NMFS proposes
to require a 500 m shutdown zone for
high frequency cetaceans during 24-in
and 30-in DTH activities. Therefore, for
some DTH activities, the estimated
Level A harassment zone is larger than
the proposed shutdown zone, and
therefore, some Level A harassment
could occur. Dall’s porpoises may enter
and remain within the area between the
Level A harassment zone and the
shutdown zone and be exposed to
sound levels for a duration long enough
to be taken by Level A harassment.
Additionally, given the large size of the
required shutdown zones for some
activities, it is possible that a Dall’s
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
porpoise could enter a shutdown zone
without detection and remain in the
zone for a duration long enough to taken
by Level A harassment before being
observed and a shutdown occurring.
To calculate take by Level A
harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A
harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using
a single hammer minus the shutdown
zone isopleth (4,269 m¥500 m = 3,769
m) to the Level B harassment zone
isopleth (13,594 m; 3,769/13,594 =
0.2773). ADOT multiplied the resulting
ratio by the total potential take in
Tongass Narrows, resulting in 20 takes
by Level A harassment (i.e., 72 takes by
Level B harassment × 0.2773 = 20 takes
by Level A harassment). NMFS revised
and concurs with this method.
(Potential operation of two DTH
hammers for 24-in/30-in or 30-in/30-in
pile combinations would result in larger
Level A harassment isopleths than 4,269
m, however, such concurrent work
would rarely occur, if at all, and
therefore, as described above, NMFS
expects that calculating Level A
harassment take using those zones is
unnecessary.) Take by Level B
harassment proposed for authorization
was calculated as the total calculated
Dall’s porpoise takes by Level B
harassment minus the takes by Level A
harassment (227 takes¥20 takes by
Level A harassment) for a total of 207
takes by Level B harassment. ADOT
therefore requests and NMFS proposes
to authorize 20 takes by Level A
harassment, and 207 takes by Level B
harassment (227 total takes of Dall’s
porpoise, Table 15).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins do not
generally occur in the shallow, inland
waterways of Southeast Alaska. There
are no records of this species occurring
in Tongass Narrows, and it is
uncommon for individuals to occur in
the proposed project area. However,
historical sightings in nearby areas
(Dahlheim and Towell 1994; Muto et al.
2018) and recent fluctuations in
distribution and abundance mean it is
possible the species could be present.
To account for the possibility that this
species could be present in the project
area, ADOT conservatively estimates,
and NMFS concurs, that one large group
(92 individuals) of Pacific white-sided
dolphins may be taken by Level B
harassment in Tongass Narrows during
the proposed activity.
As noted above, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of two hammers (any
combination) could occur on up to 44
days during the project. On those days,
the Level B harassment zone would
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
extend into Clarence Strait. However, no
additional takes of Pacific white-sided
dolphin are anticipated to occur due to
simultaneous use of two hammers,
given that Pacific white-sided dolphins
are uncommon in the project area.
Therefore, NMFS is proposing to
authorize 92 takes by Level B
harassment of Pacific white-sided
dolphins.
ADOT did not request, nor does
NMFS propose to authorize take by
Level A harassment for this activity
given that Pacific white-sided dolphins
are uncommon in the project area.
Further, considering the small Level A
harassment zones for mid-frequency
cetaceans (Table 13 and Table 14) in
comparison to the required shutdown
zones, it is unlikely that a Pacific whitesided dolphin would enter and remain
within the area between the Level A
harassment zone and the shutdown
zone for a duration long enough to be
taken by Level A harassment.
Killer Whale
Killer whales are observed in Tongass
Narrows irregularly with peaks in
abundance between May and July.
During 7 months of intermittent marine
mammal monitoring (October 2020–
February 2021; May–June 2021), there
were five killer whale sightings in 4
months (November, February, May,
June) totaling 22 animals; sightings
occurred on 5 out of 88 days of
monitoring (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Pod sizes ranged
from two to eight animals (DOT&PF
2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Previous incidental take authorizations
in the Ketchikan area have estimated
killer whale occurrence in Tongass
Narrows at one pod per month, except
during the peak period of May to July
when estimates have included two pods
per month (Freitag 2017 as cited in 83
FR 37473; August 1, 2018 and 83 FR
34134; July 17, 2019).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of two hammers (any
combination) could occur on up to 44
days during the project. On those days,
the Level B harassment zone would
extend into Clarence Strait. In
estimating take by Level B harassment,
ADOT assumed a pod size of 12 killer
whales, that all 91 days of work would
occur between May and July during the
peaks in abundance, and that therefore,
2 pods may occur within the Level B
harassment zone (including both
Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait)
during each month of work, for a total
of 72 takes by Level B harassment (2
groups × 12 individuals × 3 months = 72
killer whales). Therefore, ADOT
estimates that a total of 72 killer whales
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
may be taken by Level B harassment
(i.e., 2 pods of 12 individuals per month
× 3 months (91 days) = 72 takes by Level
B harassment). NMFS reviewed and
concurs with this method, and proposes
to authorize 72 takes by Level B
harassment of killer whale.
ADOT did not request, nor does
NMFS propose to authorize take by
Level A harassment of killer whales for
this activity. Considering the small
Level A harassment zones for midfrequency cetaceans (Table 13 and Table
14) in comparison to the required
shutdown zones, it is unlikely that a
killer whale would enter and remain
within the area between the Level A
harassment zone and the shutdown
zone for a duration long enough to be
taken by Level A harassment.
Humpback Whale
As discussed in the Description of
Marine Mammals in the Area of
Specified Activities section, locals have
observed humpback whales an average
of about once per week in Tongass
Narrows, but there is evidence to
suggest occurrence may be higher
during some periods of the year. The
December 19, 2019 Biological Opinion
stated that based on observations by
local experts, approximately one group
of two individuals would occur in
Tongass Narrows during ADOT’s
activity two times per seven days during
pile driving, pile removal, and DTH
activities throughout the year. The
assumption was based on differences in
abundance throughout the year, recent
observations of larger groups of whales
present during summer, and a higher
than average frequency of occurrence in
recent months (NMFS 2019). ADOT’s
2020 and 2021 monitoring program
documented a similar sighting rate, with
30 humpback whale sightings over 53
days of in-water pile driving; some of
the sightings were believed to be
repeated sightings of the same
individual (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). ADOT therefore
predicts, and NMFS concurs, that one
group of two individuals may occur
within the Level B harassment zones
twice per week during the proposed
activities. As noted previously, ADOT
estimates that pile driving would occur
over the course of 91 days (13 weeks).
Therefore, ADOT estimates, and NMFS
concurs that 52 takes by Level B
harassment of humpback whales (1
group of 2 individuals × 2 groups per
week × 13 weeks = 52 takes by Level B
harassment) from the Central North
Pacific stock may occur in Tongass
Narrows.
As noted above, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of two hammers (any
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
6007
combination) could occur on up to 44
days during the project. On those days,
the Level B harassment zone would
extend into Clarence Strait. Local
specialists estimated that approximately
four humpback whales could pass
through or near the portion of the Level
B harassment zone in Clarence Strait
each day. Therefore, ADOT estimates,
and NMFS concurs, that during the 44
days with potential simultaneous use of
two hammers, 176 takes by Level B
harassment of humpback whale could
occur in Clarence Strait (4 humpback
whales × 44 days = 176 takes by Level
B harassment). Therefore, the sum of
total estimated takes by Level B
harassment of humpback whale between
Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait is
228 (52 + 176 = 228 takes by Level B
harassment), and NMFS proposes to
authorize 228 takes by Level B
harassment of humpback whale.
As noted previously, Wade et al.
(2021) estimates that approximately 2
percent of all humpback whales in
Southeast Alaska and northern British
Columbia are of the Mexico DPS, while
all others are of the Hawaii DPS.
However, NMFS has conservatively
assumed here that 6.1 percent of the
total humpback population in Southeast
Alaska is from the Mexico DPS (Wade
et al. 2016). Therefore, of the 228 takes
of humpback whale proposed for
authorization, NMFS expects that a total
of 14 takes would be of individuals from
the Mexico DPS. NMFS expects that all
other instances of proposed take would
be from the non-listed Hawaii DPS.
Take by Level A harassment of
humpback whales is neither anticipated
nor proposed to be authorized because
of the expected effectiveness of the
required monitoring and mitigation
measures (see Proposed Mitigation
section below for more details). For all
pile driving and DTH activities, the
shutdown zone exceeds the calculated
Level A harassment zone. Humpbacks
are usually readily visible, and
therefore, we expect PSOs to be able to
effectively implement the required
shutdown measures prior to any
humpback whales incurring PTS within
Level A harassment zones.
Minke Whales
Minke whales may be present in
Tongass Narrows year-round. Their
abundance throughout Southeast Alaska
is very low, and anecdotal reports have
not included minke whales near the
project area. ADOT’s monitoring
program in Tongass Narrows also did
not report any minke whale sightings.
However, minke whales are distributed
throughout a wide variety of habitats
and could occur near the project area.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
6008
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
Minke whales are generally sighted as
solo individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of two hammers (any
combination) could occur on up to 44
days during the project. On those days,
the Level B harassment zone would
extend into Clarence Strait. Based on
Freitag (2017; as cited in 83 FR 37473;
August 1, 2018 and 83 FR 34134; July
17, 2019), ADOT estimates that three
individual minke whales may occur
near or within the Level B harassment
zone (including both Tongass Narrows
and Clarence Strait) every four months.
Based on that estimated occurrence rate,
NMFS estimates that three minke
whales may occur in the Level B
harassment zone during the proposed
activities (occurring over approximately
3 months), and proposes to authorize 3
takes by Level B harassment of minke
whales (Table 15).
The largest Level A harassment zone
for minke whale extends 3,584 m from
the noise source for 10 hours of DTH
using a single hammer, and 3,084 m
from the noise source for 4 hours of
DTH using two hammers for 30-in piles
simultaneously. (As noted previously,
ADOT estimates that simultaneous use
of any two hammer types would occur
on no more than 44 days.) Zones for
shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 14). NMFS
proposes to require a 1,500 m shutdown
zone for minke whales during 24-in and
30-in DTH activities. Therefore, for
some DTH activities, the estimated
Level A harassment zone is larger than
the proposed shutdown zone, and Level
A harassment could occur.
To calculate take by Level A
harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A
harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using
a single hammer minus the shutdown
zone isopleth (3,584 m¥1,500 m =
2,084 m) to the Level B harassment zone
isopleth (13,594 m; 2,084 m/13,594 m =
0.1533). ADOT multiplied the resulting
ratio by the total potential take by Level
B harassment, resulting in 1 take by
Level A harassment (i.e., 3 takes by
Level B harassment × 0.1533 = 1 take by
Level A harassment). NMFS reviewed
and concurs with this method.
(Potential operation of two DTH
hammers for 24-in/30-in or 30-in/30-in
pile combinations would result in larger
Level A harassment isopleths than 4,269
m, however, such concurrent work
would rarely occur, if at all, and
therefore, as described above NMFS
expects that calculating Level A
harassment take using those zones is
unnecessary.) Take by Level B
harassment was calculated as the total
potential minke whale takes by Level B
harassment minus the takes by Level A
harassment. ADOT therefore requests,
and NMFS proposes to authorize 1 take
by Level A harassment and 2 takes by
Level B harassment (3 total takes of
minke whale, Table 15).
TABLE 15—PROPOSED AMOUNT OF TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE, BY STOCK AND HARASSMENT TYPE
Proposed authorized take
Species
DPS/stock
Steller sea lion ..................................
Harbor seal .......................................
Harbor porpoise ................................
Dall’s porpoise ..................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............
Killer whale ........................................
Humpback whale ..............................
Minke whale ......................................
Eastern U.S ......................................
Clarence Strait .................................
Southeast Alaska .............................
Alaska ...............................................
North Pacific .....................................
Alaska Resident ...............................
West Coast Transient ......................
Northern Resident ............................
Central North Pacific ........................
Alaska ...............................................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to the activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses.
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Total
91
116
5
20
0
........................
0
........................
0
1
2,169
1,014
27
207
92
........................
72
........................
228
2
2,260
1,130
32
227
92
........................
72
........................
228
3
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, we carefully consider two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the
likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned),
and;
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Percent of
stock
5.2
4.1
2.5
1.7
0.3
a 3.1
a 20.1
a 23.8
b 2.3
N/A
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
Because of the need for an ESA
Section 7 consultation for effects of the
project on ESA listed humpback whales,
there are a number of mitigation
measures that go beyond, or are in
addition to, typical mitigation measures
we would otherwise require for this sort
of project. The proposed measures are
however typical for actions in the
Ketchikan area. The mitigation
measures included herein include
measures that align with the 2019
Biological Opinion, and are subject to
change, as required by NMFS’ ESA
Section 7 consultation. If Section 7
consultation warrants changes to these
measures, NMFS expects that the new
measures would align closely with those
included in the recent proposed IHA for
construction at the NOAA Port Facility
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
Project in Ketchikan, Alaska (86 FR
68223; December 1, 2021). ADOT must
employ the following mitigation
measures as included in the proposed
IHA:
• Avoid direct physical interaction
with marine mammals during
construction activity. If a marine
mammal comes within 10 m of such
activity, operations must cease and
vessels must reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
steerage and safe working conditions
(note that NMFS expects that a 10 m
shutdown zone is sufficient to avoid
direct physical interaction with marine
mammals, but ADOT has conservatively
proposed a 20 m shutdown zone to
avoid physical interaction for in-water
other than vessel transit);
• Ensure that construction
supervisors and crews, the monitoring
team and relevant ADOT staff are
trained prior to the start of all pile
driving and DTH activity, so that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, monitoring protocols, and
operational procedures are clearly
understood. New personnel joining
during the project must be trained prior
to commencing work;
• Pile driving activity must be halted
upon observation of either a species for
which incidental take is not authorized
or a species for which incidental take
has been authorized but the authorized
number of takes has been met, entering
or within the harassment zone;
• For any marine mammal species for
which take by Level B harassment has
not been requested or authorized, inwater pile installation/removal and DTH
will shut down immediately when the
animals are sighted;
• Employ PSOs and establish
monitoring locations as described in the
Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and
Section 5 of the IHA. The Holder must
monitor the project area to the
maximum extent possible based on the
required number of PSOs, required
monitoring locations, and
environmental conditions. For all pile
driving and removal at least three PSOs
must be used;
• The placement of the PSOs during
all pile driving and removal and DTH
activities will ensure that the entire
shutdown zone is visible during pile
installation;
• Monitoring must take place from 30
minutes prior to initiation of pile
driving or DTH activity (i.e., preclearance monitoring) through 30
minutes post-completion of pile driving
or DTH activity;
• If in-water work ceases for more
than 30 minutes, ADOT will conduct
pre-clearance monitoring of both the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
Level B harassment zone and shutdown
zone;
• Pre-start clearance monitoring must
be conducted during periods of
visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to
determine that the shutdown zones
indicated in Table 16 are clear of marine
mammals. Pile driving may commence
following 30 minutes of observation
when the determination is made that the
shutdown zones are clear of marine
mammals;
• If a marine mammal is observed
entering or within the shutdown zones
indicated in Table 16, pile driving must
be delayed or halted. If pile driving is
delayed or halted due to the presence of
a marine mammal, the activity may not
commence or resume until either the
animal has voluntarily exited and been
visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone (Table 16) or 15 minutes
have passed without re-detection of the
animal (30 minutes for humpback
whales);
• As required by the 2019 Biological
Opinion, if waters exceed a sea state
that restricts the PSOs’ ability to make
observations within the shutdown zone,
in-water pile installation and removal
will cease. Pile installation and removal
will not be initiated or continue until
the appropriate shutdown zone is
visible in its entirety;
• For humpback whales, if the
boundaries of the harassment zone have
not been monitored continuously during
a work stoppage, the entire harassment
zone will be surveyed again to ensure
that no humpback whales have entered
the harassment zone that were not
previously accounted for;
• In-water activities will take place
only: Between civil dawn and civil dusk
when PSOs can effectively monitor for
the presence of marine mammals;
during conditions with a Beaufort Sea
State of 4 or less; when the entire
shutdown zone and adjacent waters are
visible (e.g., monitoring effectiveness is
not reduced due to rain, fog, snow, etc.).
Pile driving may continue for up to 30
minutes after sunset during evening
civil twilight, as necessary to secure a
pile for safety prior to demobilization
for the evening. PSO(s) will continue to
observe shutdown and monitoring zones
during this time. The length of the postactivity monitoring period may be
reduced if darkness precludes visibility
of the shutdown and monitoring zones;
• Vessel operators will implement the
following required measures: Maintain a
watch for marine mammals at all times
while underway; remain at least and at
least 91 m (100 yards (yd)) from all
other listed marine mammals, travel at
less than 5 knots (9 km/hr) when within
274 m (300 yd) of a whale; avoid
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
6009
changes in direction and speed when
within 274 m (300 yd) of whales, unless
doing so is necessary for maritime
safety; not position vessel(s) in the path
of whales, and will not cut in front of
whales in a way or at a distance that
causes the whales to change their
direction of travel or behavior
(including breathing/surfacing pattern);
check the waters immediately adjacent
to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales
will be injured when the propellers are
engaged; adhere to the Alaska
Humpback Whale Approach
Regulations when transiting to and from
the project site (see 50 CFR 216.18,
223.214, and 224.103(b)); not allow
lines to remain in the water, and not
throw trash or other debris overboard,
thereby reducing the potential for
marine mammal entanglement; follow
established transit routes and travel <10
knots while in the harassment zones;
follow the speed limit within Tongass
Narrows (7 knots for vessels over 23 ft
in length). If a whale’s course and speed
are such that it will likely cross in front
of a vessel that is underway, or
approach within 91 m (100 yards (yd))
of the vessel, and if maritime conditions
safely allow, the engine will be put in
neutral and the whale will be allowed
to pass beyond the vessel, except that
vessels will remain 460 m (500 yd) from
North Pacific right whales; if a
humpback whale comes within 10 m
(32.8 ft) of a vessel during construction,
the vessel will reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain
safe steerage and working conditions
until the humpback whale is at least 10
m (32.8 ft) away from the vessel; vessels
are prohibited from disrupting the
normal behavior or prior activity of a
whale by any other act or omission.
• ADOT must use soft start
techniques when impact pile driving.
Soft start requires contractors to provide
an initial set of three strikes at reduced
energy, followed by a 30-second waiting
period, then two subsequent reducedenergy strike sets. A soft start must 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 30 minutes or
longer; and
• If take by Level B harassment
reaches the authorized limit for an
authorized species, pile installation will
be stopped as these species approach
the Level B harassment zone to avoid
additional take of them.
Further, on days when simultaneous
use of two hammers producing
continuous noise (two DTH hammers,
one DTH and one vibratory hammer, or
two vibratory hammers) is expected:
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
6010
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
• When combinations of one DTH
hammer with a vibratory hammer or two
DTH hammers are used simultaneously,
each PSO of the two contractors will
have three PSOs working and the PSO
teams will work together to monitor the
entire area;
• One or more PSOs will be present
at each construction site during in-water
pile installation and removal so that
Level A harassment zones and
shutdown zones are monitored by a
dedicated PSO at all times.
• The ADOT environmental
coordinator for the project will
implement coordination between or
among the PSO contractors. ADOT will
include in the contracts that PSOs must
coordinate, collaborate, and otherwise
work together to ensure compliance
with project permits and authorizations.
The following specific mitigation
measures will also apply to ADOT’s inwater construction activities:
Establishment of Level A Harassment
Zones and Shutdown Zones—For all
pile driving/removal and DTH activities,
ADOT will establish a shutdown zone
(Table 16). The purpose of a shutdown
zone is generally to define an area
within which shutdown of activity
would occur upon sighting of a marine
mammal (or in anticipation of an animal
entering the defined area). Shutdown
zones vary based on the activity type
and duration and marine mammal
hearing group (Table 16). For vibratory
installation and removal and impact
installation, shutdown zones will be
based on the Level A harassment
isopleth distances for each hearing
group.
ADOT anticipates that the daily
duration of DTH use may vary
significantly, with large differences in
maximum zones sizes possible
depending on the work planned for a
given day. Given this uncertainty and
concerns related to ESA-listed
humpback whales, ADOT would utilize
a tiered system to identify and monitor
the appropriate Level A harassment
zones and shutdown zones, based on
the maximum expected DTH duration.
At the start of any work involving DTH,
ADOT would first determine whether
DTH may occur at two sites
concurrently or just at one site. If DTH
may occur at two sites concurrently,
then ADOT would implement the Level
A harassment zones and shutdown
zones associated with simultaneous
DTH use of the relevant pile sizes (Table
14 and Table 16). If DTH may only
occur at one site, ADOT would then
determine the maximum duration of
DTH possible that day (according to the
defined duration intervals in Table 16),
which would determine the appropriate
Level A harassment isopleth for that day
(Table 13 and Table 14). This Level A
harassment zone and associated
shutdown zone must be observed by
PSO(s) for the entire work day or until
it is determined that, given the duration
of activity for the day, the Level A
harassment isopleth cannot exceed the
next lower Level A harassment isopleth
size in Table 13.
Due to practicability concerns,
shutdown zones for some species during
some activities may be smaller than the
Level A harassment isopleths (Table 16).
The placement of PSOs during all pile
driving, pile removal, and DTH
activities (described in detail in the
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
Section) will ensure that the entire
shutdown zones are visible during pile
installation.
TABLE 16—SHUTDOWN ZONES AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR EACH ACTIVITY
Pile size
(in)
Activity
Vibratory Installation ..............
Minutes per
pile or strikes
per pile
LF (humpback
whales)
LF (minke
whales)
60
60
60
60
min
min
min
min
50
Vibratory Removal .................
30
24
20
24
DTH of Rock Sockets ...........
30
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
600
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
600
120
240
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
780
1,300
1,700
2,000
2,300
2,600
2,900
3,100
3,400
3,600
360
570
750
910
1,100
1,200
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
90
130
1,500
50 strikes
50 strikes
50 strikes
100
60
100
60
24
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Shutdown distances (m)
DTH of Tension Anchor ........
8
Impact Installation .................
30
24
20
MF
HF
PW
Level B
harassment
isopleth (m)
OW
20
30
50
60
70
90
100
130
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
60
20
1,500
90
130
20
6,310
5,412
500
200
500
200
100
160
50
70
120
70
60
30
40
50
70
80
90
100
13,594
100
20
30
30
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
20
20
2,154
1,000
TABLE 17—SHUTDOWN ZONES, BY HEARING GROUP FOR SIMULTANEOUS USE OF TWO DTH HAMMERS
Level A harassment isopleth (m)
Activity combination
LF
8-in pile, 8-in pile .....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:46 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
MF
210
Sfmt 4703
HF
20
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
PW
250
02FEN2
OW
110
20
6011
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
TABLE 17—SHUTDOWN ZONES, BY HEARING GROUP FOR SIMULTANEOUS USE OF TWO DTH HAMMERS—Continued
Level A harassment isopleth (m)
Activity combination
LF
8-in pile, 24-in pile ...................................................................................
8-in pile, 30-in pile ...................................................................................
24-in pile, 24-in pile .................................................................................
24-in pile, 30-in ........................................................................................
30-in pile, 30-in pile .................................................................................
ADOT also must abide by the terms
and conditions of the December 19,
2019 Biological Opinion and Incidental
Take Statement issued by NMFS
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, as well
as other measures considered by NMFS,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
MF
1,300
2,800
1,440
2,270
3,090
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).
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring must be conducted by
qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in
accordance with the following:
• PSOs must be independent (i.e., not
construction personnel) and have no
other assigned tasks during monitoring
periods. At least one PSO must have
prior experience performing the duties
of a PSO during construction activity
pursuant to a NMFS-issued IHA. Other
PSOs may substitute other relevant
experience, education (degree in
biological science or related field), or
training for prior experience performing
the duties of a PSO during construction
activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued
IHA. Where a team of three or more
PSOs is required, a lead observer or
monitoring coordinator must be
designated. The lead observer must have
prior experience performing the duties
of a PSO during construction activity
pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental
take authorization. PSOs must be
approved by NMFS prior to beginning
any activity subject to this IHA; and
• PSOs must record all observations
of marine mammals as described in the
Section 5 of the IHA and the Marine
Mammal Monitoring Plan, regardless of
distance from the pile being driven.
PSOs shall document any behavioral
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
HF
50
100
60
90
110
PW
500
OW
200
60
110
60
90
120
reactions in concert with distance from
piles being driven or removed;
PSOs must 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;
Additionally, as required by NMFS’
December 2019 Biological Opinion,
each PSO will be trained and provided
with reference materials to ensure
standardized and accurate observations
and data collection.
ADOT must employ three PSOs
during all pile driving and DTH. A
minimum of one PSO (the lead PSO)
must be assigned to the active pile
driving or DTH location to monitor the
shutdown zones and as much of the
Level B harassment zones as possible.
Two additional PSOs are also required,
though the observation points may vary
depending on the construction activity
and location of the piles. To select the
best observation locations, prior to start
of construction, the lead PSO will stand
at the construction site to monitor the
Level A harassment zones while two or
more PSOs travel in opposite directions
from the project site along Tongass
Narrows until they have reached the
edge of the appropriate Level B
harassment zone, where they will
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
6012
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
identify suitable observation points
from which to observe. When needed,
an additional PSO will be stationed on
the north end of Revilla Island
observing to the northwest. See Figure
2–11 of ADOT’s Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for a
map of proposed PSO locations. If
visibility deteriorates so that the entire
width of Tongass Narrows at the
harassment zone boundary is not
visible, additional PSOs may be
positioned so that the entire width is
visible, or work will be halted until the
entire width is visible to ensure that any
humpback whales entering or within the
harassment zone are detected by PSOs.
When DTH use occurs, or
simultaneous use of one DTH with a
vibratory hammer or two DTH systems
occurs, creating Level B harassment
zones that exceed 13 km and 21 km,
respectively, and Level A harassment
zones that extend over 6 km, one
additional PSO will be stationed at the
northernmost land-based location at the
entrance to Tongass Narrows (at least
two PSOs total at that location, four
PSOs on duty across all PSO locations).
One of these PSO will focus on Tongass
Narrows, specifically watching for
marine mammals that could approach or
enter Tongass Narrows and the project
area. The second PSO will look out into
Clarence Strait, watching for marine
mammals that could swim through the
ensonified area. No additional PSOs
will be required at the southern-most
monitoring location because the Level B
harassment zones are truncated to the
southeast by islands, which prevent
propagation of sound in that direction
beyond the confines of Tongass
Narrows. Takes by Level B harassment
will be recorded by PSOs and
extrapolated based upon the number of
observed takes and the percentage of the
Level B harassment zone that was not
visible.
Each construction contractor
managing an active construction site
and on-going in-water pile installation
or removal will provide qualified,
independent PSOs for their specific
contract. The ADOT environmental
coordinator for the project will
implement coordination between or
among the PSO contractors. It will be a
required component of their contracts
that PSOs coordinate, collaborate, and
otherwise work together to ensure
compliance with project permits and
authorizations.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
60 days prior to a requested date of
issuance of any future IHAs for projects
at the same location, whichever comes
first. The report would include an
overall description of work completed,
a narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings, and associated PSO 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 the number and type of piles
driven or removed and by what method
(i.e., impact, vibratory or DTH) and the
total equipment duration for vibratory
removal or DTH for each pile or hole or
total number of strikes for each pile
(impact driving);
• PSO locations during marine
mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during
monitoring periods (at beginning and
end of PSO shift and whenever
conditions change significantly),
including Beaufort sea state and any
other relevant weather conditions
including cloud cover, fog, sun glare,
and overall visibility to the horizon, and
estimated observable distance;
• Upon observation of a marine
mammal, the following information:
Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s)
and PSO location and activity at time of
sighting; Time of sighting; Identification
of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species,
lowest possible taxonomic level, or
unidentified), PSO confidence in
identification, and the composition of
the group if there is a mix of species;
Distance and bearing of each marine
mammal observed relative to the pile
being driven for each sighting (if pile
driving was occurring at time of
sighting); Estimated number of animals
(min/max/best estimate); Estimated
number of animals by cohort (adults,
juveniles, neonates, group composition,
sex class, etc.); Animal’s closest point of
approach and estimated time spent
within the harassment zone; Description
of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors
such as feeding or traveling), including
an assessment of behavioral responses
thought to have resulted from the
activity (e.g., no response or changes in
behavioral state such as ceasing feeding,
changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
• Number of marine mammals
detected within the harassment zones
and shutdown zones, by species;
• Table summarizing any incidents
resulting in take of ESA-listed species;
• Detailed information about any
implementation of any mitigation
triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
description of specific actions that
ensued, and resulting changes in
behavior of the animal(s), if any;
• Description of other human activity
within each monitoring period;
• Description of any deviation from
initial proposal in pile numbers, pile
types, average driving times, etc.;
• Brief description of any
impediments to obtaining reliable
observations during construction
period;
• Description of any impediments to
complying with these mitigation
measures; and
• If visibility degrades to where the
PSO(s) cannot view the entire impact or
vibratory harassment zones, take of
humpback whales would be
extrapolated based on the estimated
percentage of the monitoring zone that
remains visible and the number of
marine mammals observed.
If no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days, the draft final
report would 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 must immediately cease the
specified activities and report the
incident to the Office of Protected
Resources (OPR)
(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov),
NMFS and to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinator as soon as
feasible. If the death or injury was
clearly caused by the specified activity,
ADOT 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
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
• General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the
number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, our analysis
applies to all species listed in Table 2
for which take could occur, given that
NMFS expects the anticipated effects of
the proposed pile driving/removal and
DTH on different marine mammal
stocks to be similar in nature. Where
there are meaningful differences
between species or stocks, or groups of
species, in anticipated individual
responses to activities, impact of
expected take on the population due to
differences in population status, or
impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified
species-specific factors to inform the
analysis.
Pile driving and DTH activities
associated with the project, as outlined
previously, have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B
harassment and, for some species, Level
A harassment from underwater sounds
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
generated by pile driving. Potential
takes could occur if marine mammals
are present in zones ensonified above
the thresholds for Level B harassment or
Level A harassment, identified above,
while activities are underway.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious
injury or mortality would occur as a
result of ADOT’s planned activity given
the nature of the activity, even in the
absence of required mitigation. Further,
no take by Level A harassment is
anticipated for Pacific white-sided
dolphin, killer whale, or humpback
whale, due to the likelihood of
occurrence and/or required mitigation
measures. As stated in the mitigation
section, ADOT would implement
shutdown zones that equal or exceed
many of the Level A harassment
isopleths shown in Table 13. Take by
Level A harassment is authorized for
some species (Steller sea lions, harbor
seals, harbor porpoises, Dall’s porpoises,
and minke whales) to account for the
potential that an animal could enter and
remain within the area between a Level
A harassment zone and the shutdown
zone for a duration long enough to be
taken by Level A harassment, and in
some cases, to account for the
possibility that an animal could enter a
shutdown zone without detection given
the various obstructions along the
shoreline, and remain in the Level A
harassment zone for a duration long
enough to be taken by Level A
harassment before being observed and a
shutdown occurring. Any take by Level
A harassment is expected to arise from,
at most, a small degree of PTS because
animals would need to be exposed to
higher levels and/or longer duration
than are expected to occur here in order
to incur any more than a small degree
of PTS. Additionally, and as noted
previously, some subset of the
individuals that are behaviorally
harassed could also simultaneously
incur some small degree of TTS for a
short duration of time. Because of the
small degree anticipated, though, any
PTS or TTS potentially incurred here
would not be expected to adversely
impact individual fitness, let alone
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
For all species and stocks, take would
occur within a limited, confined area
(adjacent to the project site) of the
stock’s range. Take by Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
would be reduced to the level of least
practicable adverse impact through use
of mitigation measures described herein.
Further the amount of take proposed to
be authorized is small when compared
to stock abundance.
Behavioral responses of marine
mammals to pile driving, pile removal,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
6013
and DTH at the sites in Tongass
Narrows are expected to be mild, short
term, and temporary. Marine mammals
within the Level B harassment zones
may not show any visual cues they are
disturbed by activities or they could
become alert, avoid the area, leave the
area, or display other mild responses
that are not observable such as changes
in vocalization patterns. Given that pile
driving, pile removal, and DTH would
occur for only a portion of the project’s
duration and often on nonconsecutive
days, any harassment occurring would
be temporary. Additionally, many of the
species present in Tongass Narrows or
Clarence Strait would only be present
temporarily based on seasonal patterns
or during transit between other habitats.
These temporarily present species
would be exposed to even smaller
periods of noise-generating activity,
further decreasing the impacts.
For all species except humpback
whales, there are no known Biologically
Important Areas (BIAs) near the project
zone that would be impacted by ADOT’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. Also, while southeast Alaska is
considered an important area for feeding
humpback whales between March and
May (Ellison et al. 2012), it is not
currently designated as critical habitat
for humpback whales (86 FR 21082;
April 21, 2021).
More generally, there are no known
calving or rookery grounds within the
project area, but anecdotal evidence
from local experts shows that marine
mammals are more prevalent in Tongass
Narrows and Clarence Strait during
spring and summer associated with
feeding on aggregations of fish, meaning
the area may play a role in foraging.
Because ADOT’s activities could occur
during any season, takes may occur
during important feeding times.
However, the project area represents a
small portion of available foraging
habitat and impacts on marine mammal
feeding for all species, including
humpback whales, should be minimal.
Any impacts on marine mammal prey
that would occur during ADOT’s
planned activity would have, at most,
short-term effects on foraging of
individual marine mammals, and likely
no effect on the populations of marine
mammals as a whole. Indirect effects on
marine mammal prey during the
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
6014
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
construction are expected to be minor,
and these effects are unlikely to cause
substantial effects on marine mammals
at the individual level, with no expected
effect on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
In addition, it is unlikely that minor
noise effects in a small, localized area of
habitat would have any effect on the
stocks’ annual rates of recruitment or
survival. 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 would have only minor, shortterm effects on individuals. The
specified activities are not expected to
impact rates of recruitment or survival
and would, therefore, not result in
population-level impacts.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed for
authorization;
• Take by Level A harassment of
Pacific white-sided dolphin, killer
whale, and humpback whale is not
anticipated or proposed for
authorization;
• ADOT would implement mitigation
measures including soft-starts for
impact pile driving and shutdown zones
to minimize the numbers of marine
mammals exposed to injurious levels of
sound, and to ensure that take by Level
A harassment is, at most, a small degree
of PTS;
• The intensity of anticipated takes
by Level B harassment is relatively low
for all stocks and would not be of a
duration or intensity expected to result
in impacts on reproduction or survival;
• The only known area of specific
biological importance covers a broad
area of southeast Alaska for humpback
whales, and the project area is a very
small portion of that BIA. No other
known areas of particular biological
importance to any of the affected
species or stocks are impacted by the
activity, including ESA-designated
critical habitat;
• The project area represents a very
small portion of the available foraging
area for all potentially impacted marine
mammal species and stocks and
anticipated habitat impacts are minor;
and
• Monitoring reports from similar
work in Tongass Narrows have
documented little to no effect on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under 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
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 instances of take NMFS proposes
to authorize is below one third of the
estimated stock abundance for all stocks
(see Table 15). The number of animals
that we expect to authorize to be taken
from these stocks would be considered
small relative to the relevant stocks’
abundances even if each estimated
taking occurred to a new individual,
which is an unlikely scenario. Some
individuals may return multiple times
in a day, but PSOs would count them as
separate takes if they cannot be
individually identified.
The Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise
has no official NMFS abundance
estimate for this area, as the most recent
estimate is greater than eight years old.
The most recent estimate was 13,110
animals for just a portion of the stock’s
range. Therefore, the 227 takes of this
stock proposed for authorization clearly
represent small numbers of this stock.
Likewise, the Southeast Alaska stock
of harbor porpoise has no official NMFS
abundance estimate as the most recent
estimate is greater than eight years old.
The most recent estimate was 11,146
animals (Muto et al. 2021) and it is
highly unlikely this number has
drastically declined. Therefore, the 32
takes of this stock proposed for
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
authorization clearly represent small
numbers of this stock.
There is no current or historical
estimate of the Alaska minke whale
stock, but there are known to be over
1,000 minke whales in the Gulf of
Alaska (Muto et al. 2018) so the 3 takes
proposed for authorization clearly
represent small numbers of this stock.
Additionally, the range of the Alaska
stock of minke whales is extensive,
stretching from the Canadian Pacific
coast to the Chukchi Sea, and ADOT’s
project area impacts a small portion of
this range. Therefore, the 3 takes of
minke whale proposed for authorization
is small relative to estimated survey
abundance, even if each proposed take
occurred to a new individual.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must
find that the specified activity will not
have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’
on the subsistence uses of the affected
marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaska 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.
Harbor seals are the marine mammal
species most regularly harvested for
subsistence by households in Ketchikan
and Saxman (a community a few miles
south of Ketchikan, on the Tongass
Narrows). Eighty harbor seals were
harvested by Ketchikan residents in
2007, which ranked fourth among all
communities in Alaska that year for
harvest of harbor seals. Thirteen harbor
seals were harvested by Saxman
residents in 2007. In 2008, two Steller
sea lions were harvested by Ketchikanbased subsistence hunters, but this is
the only record of sea lion harvest by
residents of either Ketchikan or Saxman.
In 2012, the community of Ketchikan
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices
had an estimated subsistence take of 22
harbor seals and 0 Steller sea lion (Wolf
et al. 2013). NMFS is not aware of more
recent data. Hunting usually occurs in
October and November (ADF&G 2009),
but there are also records of relatively
high harvest in May (Wolfe et al. 2013).
The Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) has not recorded harvest
of cetaceans from Ketchikan or Saxman
(ADF&G 2018).
All project activities would take place
within the industrial area of Tongass
Narrows immediately adjacent to
Ketchikan where subsistence activities
do not generally occur. Both the harbor
seal and the Steller sea lion may be
temporarily displaced from the project
area. The project also would not have an
adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammals for subsistence use at
locations farther away, where these
construction activities are not expected
to take place. Some minor, short-term
harassment of the harbor seals could
occur, but given the information above,
we would not expect such harassment
to have effects on subsistence hunting
activities.
Based on the description of the
specified activity and the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that there will not be an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses from
ADOT’s proposed activities.
not considered in the February 2019
opinion (PCTS #AKR–2018–9806/ECO
#AKRO–2018–01287). The original
opinion considered the effects of only
one project component being
constructed at a time and did not
analyze potential effects of concurrent
pile driving which may cause effects to
the listed species that were not
considered in the original opinion;
therefore, reinitiation of formal
consultation was required. NMFS’
AKRO issued a revised Biological
Opinion to NMFS’ OPR on December
19, 2019 which concluded that issuance
of IHAs to ADOT is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
Mexico DPS humpback whales. The
effects of this proposed Federal action
were adequately analyzed in NMFS’
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section
7(a)(2) Biological Opinion for
Construction of the Tongass Narrows
Project (Gravina Access), revised
December 19, 2019, which concluded
that the take NMFS proposes to
authorize through this IHA would not
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species or
destroy or adversely modify any
designated critical habitat. Because the
currently proposed take of Mexico DPS
of humpback whales exceeds that
authorized in the 2019 Biological
Opinion, NMFS will need to reinitiate
consultation on this project.
Endangered Species Act
Proposed Authorization
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 (OPR) consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with NMFS’ Alaska Regional
Office (AKRO).
NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize
take of the Central North Pacific stock
of humpback whales, of which a portion
belong to the Mexico DPS of humpback
whales, which are ESA-listed. On
February 6, 2019, NMFS AKRO
completed consultation with ADOT for
Tongass Narrows Project and issued a
Biological Opinion. Reinitiation of
formal consultation was required to
analyze changes to the action that were
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to ADOT for the construction of
four facilities in the channel between
Gravina Island and Revillagigedo
(Revilla) Island in Ketchikan, Alaska:
The Gravina Airport Ferry Layup
Facility, the Gravina Freight Facility,
the Revilla New Ferry Berth, and the
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth
Facility in Tongass Narrows, Alaska
beginning in March 2022, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:33 Feb 01, 2022
Jkt 256001
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this notice of proposed
IHA for the proposed construction
activities. We also request at this time
comment on the potential Renewal of
this proposed IHA as described in the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
6015
paragraph below. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform
decisions on the request for this IHA or
a subsequent Renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing
an additional 15 days for public
comments when (1) up to another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Description of
Proposed Activities section of this
notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of
Proposed Activities section of this
notice would not be completed by the
time the IHA expires and a Renewal
would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the
Dates and Duration section of this
notice, provided all of the following
conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to the needed
Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing
that the Renewal IHA expiration date
cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted under the requested
Renewal IHA are identical to the
activities analyzed under the initial
IHA, are a subset of the activities, or
include changes so minor (e.g.,
reduction in pile size) that the changes
do not affect the previous analyses,
mitigation and monitoring
requirements, or take estimates (with
the exception of reducing the type or
amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for
Renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
will remain the same and appropriate,
and the findings in the initial IHA
remain valid.
Dated: January 27, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–02035 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\02FEN2.SGM
02FEN2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5980-6015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02035]
[[Page 5979]]
Vol. 87
Wednesday,
No. 22
February 2, 2022
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to Ferry Berth Improvements in Tongass
Narrows in Ketchikan, Alaska; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 /
Notices
[[Page 5980]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XB709]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ferry Berth Improvements in Tongass
Narrows in Ketchikan, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT) for an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to the
construction of four ferry berth facilities in Tongass Narrows in
Ketchikan, Alaska: The Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility, the
Gravina Freight Facility, the Revilla New Ferry Berth, and the Gravina
Island Shuttle Ferry Berth Facility. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an IHA to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified
activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time,
one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and
if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public
Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments
prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested
MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the
final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 4,
2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted
via email to [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these
documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On August 19, 2021, NMFS received a request from the ADOT for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the construction of two ferry
berth facilities in Tongass Narrows in Ketchikan, Alaska: The Gravina
Airport Ferry Layup Facility and the Gravina Freight Facility. On
December 17, 2021 we received a revised request that included
additional work components associated with the Revilla New Ferry Berth
and Upland Improvements and the New Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth
and Related Terminal Improvements in the same region. The application
was deemed adequate and complete on January 4, 2022. ADOT's request is
for take of a small number of eight species of marine mammals, by Level
B harassment and Level A harassment. Of those eight species, five
(Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardii), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise
(Phocoenoides dalli) and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)) may
also be taken by Level A harassment. Neither the ADOT nor NMFS expects
serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued two consecutive IHAs and a Renewal IHA to
ADOT for this work (85 FR 673, January 7, 2020; 86 FR 23938, May 05,
2021).
[[Page 5981]]
ADOT complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting) of the previous IHAs and information regarding their
monitoring results may be found in the Description of Marine Mammals in
the Area of Specified Activities and Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Calculation and Estimation sections. An IHA for the first phase of
construction of the Ketchikan-Gravina Access Project was issued to ADOT
on December 20, 2019 (85 FR 673, January 7, 2020). Complete
construction of two of those components, the Revilla New Ferry Berth
and Upland Improvements and Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth
Facility/Related Terminal Improvements, did not occur within the
timeframe authorized by the Phase 1 IHA and will not be finished before
the expiration of the subsequent one-year renewal (86 FR 23938, May 05,
2021). Therefore, ADOT is requesting a new IHA for incidental take
associated with the continued marine construction of these facilities.
This proposed IHA would be valid for one year.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
ADOT is making improvements to existing ferry berths and
constructing new ferry berths on Gravina Island and Revillagigedo
(Revilla) Island in Tongass Narrows, near Ketchikan in southeast Alaska
(Figure 1). These ferry facilities provide the only public access
between the city of Ketchikan, AK on Revilla Island, and the Ketchikan
International Airport on Gravina Island (Figure 1). The project's
proposed activities that have the potential to take marine mammals, by
Level A harassment and Level B harassment, include vibratory and impact
pile driving, down-the-hole (DTH) operations for pile installation
(rock socketing of piles and tension anchors to secure piles), and
vibratory pile removal. The marine construction associated with the
proposed activities is planned to occur over 91 non-consecutive days
over one year beginning March 2022.
Improvement and construction of facilities is important to provide
reliable access to the airport and facilitate growth and development in
the region. Some of the existing ferry facilities are aging and
periodically out-of-service for repairs or maintenance, and this
project would provide redundant ferry berths to increase reliability.
Ketchikan is Alaska's fifth largest city, with a population of
approximately 8,125 (DCCED 2017), and has numerous marine facilities
including fishing infrastructure, cruise and ferry terminals, and
shipyards.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 5982]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE22.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Dates and Duration
In-water construction is scheduled to begin on March 1, 2022, upon
expiration of the current Phase I IHA (86 FR 23938; May 5, 2021). ADOT
anticipates that construction would occur during daylight hours only
with in-water construction occurring 6 days per week. ADOT anticipates
that the project would require approximately 91 days of pile
installation and removal
[[Page 5983]]
over the course of 7 or 8 months. Although it is anticipated that the
project would be completed sooner, ADOT requests that the IHA be valid
for a full year, from March 1, 2022 to February 28, 2023, to
accommodate scheduling unknowns or delays.
ADOT plans to implement the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Conservation Recommendations developed by NMFS. No in-water work would
occur between March 1 and June 15 for three project components: The
Revilla New Ferry Berth and Upland Improvements, Gravina Airport Ferry
Layup Facility, and Revilla Refurbish Existing Ferry Berth Facility.
Specific Geographic Region
The proposed construction project is located in Ketchikan, Alaska
(Figure 1). Improvements to the Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility
construction would occur in the same location as the existing layup
dock facility. The new Gravina Freight Facility would be constructed in
the same location as the existing barge offload facility. The New
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth construction would occur slightly
North of the Airport Ferry Layup Facility. Improvements and
construction on Revilla Island would occur approximately 4 kilometers
(km; 2.5 miles (mi)) north of downtown Ketchikan. The new Revilla
Island Airport Shuttle Ferry Berth would be constructed immediately
adjacent to the existing Revilla Island Ferry Berth.
Tongass Narrows is an approximately 13-mile-long, north-south-
oriented marine channel situated between Revilla Island to the east and
Gravina Island to the west. In the vicinity of the proposed project,
Tongass Narrows is as little as 300 meters (m; 984 feet; ft) wide.
Tongass Narrows is generally characterized by strong tidal currents and
by steep bedrock or coarse gravel-cobble-boulder shoreline. Lower
intertidal and shallow subtidal areas are often sandy or mixed gravel,
sand, and shell, with varied amounts of silt. At other areas, however,
such as at rocky points and along the northwestern shore of Pennock
Island (which is located in the south end of Tongass Narrows, between
Gravina and Revilla Islands), bedrock slopes steeply to subtidal
depths. Subtidal habitats are a mix of bedrock outcrops or ledges,
boulder-cobble slopes, and, where lower slopes permit, sandy gravel
bottoms, often mixed with significant amounts of shell debris, similar
to intertidal habitats.
Several small natural coves and areas protected by constructed
breakwaters provide wave and current protection for marine habitats
with sand or gravel bottoms with some areas of eelgrass (Zostera
marina) beds. Extensive areas of riprap bank protection and fill occur
along the northeastern shoreline of the City of Ketchikan. Construction
of numerous buildings and docks on pilings over the intertidal and
shallow subtidal zone has significantly modified the shorelines in
these areas. Shoreline protection activities have similarly modified
approximately 1 mile of the shoreline of Gravina Island in the vicinity
of the airport and airport ferry terminal.
Water depths reach approximately 49 m (160 ft) in the middle of the
Tongass Narrows between the airport and town, but generally do not
exceed 18 m (60 ft) where piles would be installed. The channel bottom
slopes at about 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) from opposite shores.
Geological conditions in the vicinity of the project were recently
evaluated (CH2M 2018). The substrate consists of approximately 18 to 23
m (60 to 75 ft) of very loose to very dense granular deltaic or
alluvial sand and gravel. At approximately 18 to 23 m (60 to 75 ft)
below the mudline, the substrate transitions to phyllite bedrock (CH2M
2018). Pile installation would occur in waters ranging in depth from
less than 1 m (3.3 ft) nearshore to approximately 20 m (66 ft),
depending on the structure and location.
Ongoing vessel activities throughout Tongass Narrows, land-based
industrial and commercial activities, and regular aircraft operations
result in elevated in-air and underwater sound conditions in the
project area that increase with proximity to the proposed project
component sites. Sound levels likely vary seasonally, with elevated
levels during summer when the tourism and fishing industries are at
their peaks.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
Planned construction includes the installation and continued
construction of new ferry facilities and the renovation of existing
structures. As stated above, the four proposed construction components
include: The Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility, the Gravina Freight
Facility, the Revilla New Ferry Berth and Upland Improvements, and the
New Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth and Related Terminal
Improvements. ADOT anticipates that work may occur at multiple sites
concurrently, and that two hammers or DTH equipment could be used
concurrently (discussed further in the Estimated Take section).
Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility
The new ferry layup dock and transfer bridge would support layup
and maintenance of the airport ferry system. The current layup dock at
the Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility is in disrepair and needs to
be replaced. ADOT would remove the existing 265-ft (80.1-m)-long
floating dock, mooring structures, and transfer bridge and construct a
new 250-ft by 85-ft (76.2 m by 25.9 m) concrete or steel floating dock
in its place. The floating dock would be restrained by two side-
restraint float dolphins and three corner/mid-restraint float dolphins.
A new 20-ft by 140-ft (6.1 m by 42.6 m) steel transfer bridge would
provide access to the floating dock. It would be necessary to remove,
relocate, and replenish the existing rock slope, demolish the existing
concrete abutment, and construct a new pile-supported bridge abutment.
The Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility construction and Gravina
Freight Facility construction is anticipated to require a total of 47
days of in-water pile installation and removal.
Gravina Freight Facility
The new Gravina Freight Facility, located approximately 100 m from
the Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility (Figure 1), would be
constructed in the same location as the existing barge offload
facility. This facility would provide improved access to Gravina Island
for highway loads that cannot be accommodated by the shuttle ferry. The
existing ramp would be widened and re-graded both above and below the
high tide line. A new concrete plank or asphalt pavement ramp would be
constructed in its place. Five breasting dolphins and one mooring
dolphin would be constructed to support barge docking and would include
pedestrian walkways for access by personnel. In addition, two new pile-
supported mooring structures would be constructed above the high tide
line. As stated above, the Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility
construction and Gravina Freight Facility construction is anticipated
to require a total of 47 days of in-water pile installation and
removal.
Revilla New Ferry Berth and Upland Improvements
The new Revilla Island airport shuttle ferry berth is the only
project component that would occur on Revilla Island, and is currently
under construction immediately adjacent to the existing Revilla Island
Ferry Berth (Figure 1). The new ferry berth consists of a 7,400 square
ft (ft\2\; 687.4 m\2\) pile-supported approach trestle at the shore
side of the ferry terminal and a 1,500 ft\2\ (139.4 m) pile-supported
approach
[[Page 5984]]
trestle extension located landside and north of the new approach
trestle. A 25-ft by 142-ft (7.6 m by 43.2 m) steel transfer bridge with
vehicle traffic lane and separated pedestrian walkway extends from the
trestle to a new 2,200 ft\2\ (204.3 m\2\) steel float and apron. The
steel float is supported by three guide pile dolphins. A bulkhead
retaining wall is being constructed at the transition from uplands to
the approach trestle. Two new stern berth dolphins with fixed hanging
fenders and three new floating fender dolphins are being constructed to
moor vessels. The new apron would be supported by three new guide pile
dolphins. Water depths at the dolphins reach approximately 60 ft (18.2
m).
While construction on the Revilla New Ferry Berth is already
underway, ADOT anticipates that it would not be complete before ADOT's
current IHA (86 FR 23938; May 5, 2021) expires. Therefore, ADOT has
requested take associated with the portion of the project that it
anticipates may remain, which consists of installation of up to five
tension anchors.
Upland improvements associated with the Revilla New Ferry Berth
include reconstruction of terminal facilities, installation of
utilities, and construction of improvements to existing staging/parking
areas. Upland improvements are not anticipated to harass marine
mammals, and therefore, are not discussed further in this document.
Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth and Related Terminal Improvements
The new Gravina Island Airport Shuttle Ferry Berth is currently
under construction (86 FR 23938; May 5, 2021) immediately adjacent to
the existing Gravina Island Ferry Berth (Figure 1). The new facility
consists of an approximately 7,000 ft\2\ (650.3 m\2\) pile-supported
approach trestle at the shore side of the ferry terminal. A 25-ft by
142-ft (7.6 m by 43.2 m) steel transfer bridge with vehicle traffic
lane and separated pedestrian walkway leads to a new 2,200 ft\2\ (204.3
m\2\) steel float and apron. The steel float is supported by three new
guide pile dolphins. Ferry berthing is supported by two new stern berth
dolphins and three new floating fender dolphins. To support the new
facility, a new bulkhead retaining wall is being constructed between
the existing ferry berth and the new approach trestle. A new fill slope
measuring approximately 21,200 ft\2\ (1,969.5 m\2\) is being
constructed west of the approach trestle. Upland improvements include
widening of the ferry approach road, retrofits to the existing
pedestrian walkway, installation of utilities, and construction of a
new employee access walkway. Due to unforeseen construction delays
encountered during the Phase 1 IHA construction period, ADOT
anticipates that construction on the Gravina Island Shuttle Ferry Berth
would not be completed before the expiration of the current IHA (86 FR
23938; May 5, 2021). Therefore, ADOT has requested take associated with
the portion of the project that it anticipates may remain, which
consists of up to 35 piles (both plumb and battered), 17-21 rock
sockets, 28 tension anchors, and up to 4 micropile anchors (Table 1).
Across the four project sites, three methods of pile installation
are anticipated. These include vibratory and impact hammers, use of DTH
systems to make holes for rock sockets and tension and micropile
anchors at some locations (Figure 1-3 of ADOT's IHA Application).
Installation of steel piles through the sediment layer would be
accomplished using vibratory or impact methods. Depending on the
location, the pile would be advanced to refusal at bedrock. Where
sediments are deep and rock socketing or anchoring (described below) is
not required, the final approximately 10 ft (3 m) of driving would be
conducted using an impact hammer so that the structural capacity of the
pile embedment can be verified or proofed. Proofing is expected to
require approximately 50 strikes over 15 minutes. Where sediments are
shallow, an impact hammer would be used to seat the piles into
competent bedrock before a DTH system is used to create holes for the
rock sockets and/or tension anchors. The pile installation methods used
would depend on sediment depth and conditions at each pile location.
Rock sockets are holes made in the bedrock where overlying
sediments are too shallow to adequately secure the bottom portion of a
pile using other methods. Rock sockets are constructed utilizing a DTH
device which uses both rotary and percussion-type drill action. These
devices consist of a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using
both rotary and pulse impact mechanisms. This breaks up the rock to
allow removal of the fragments, creating a hole that allows for
insertion of the pile. The socket holes are just large enough for the
pile to fit down in to provide lateral strength for the pile. The pile
is usually advanced at the same time that drilling occurs (the bit has
a flexible tip that can be retracted and pulled back up through the
center of a pile). Rock socket holes would be up to 15 ft (4.6 m) into
the bedrock. Drill cuttings are expelled from the top of the pile using
compressed air and/or other fluids. It is estimated that use of DTH for
rock sockets into the bedrock would take approximately 4-8 hours per
pile. Some piles would be seated in rock sockets as well as anchored
with tension anchors.
Tension anchors are comprised of a threaded steel rod grouted into
the bedrock strata at a specified depth below the pile tip. The rod is
tested and anchored to the top of the pile to resist uplift forces in
the associated structure. Tension anchors are installed within piles
that are DTH drilled or hammered into the bedrock below the elevation
of the pile tip, after the pile has been driven through the sediment
layer to refusal. A 6- or 8-inch-diameter steel pipe casing is inserted
inside the larger-diameter production pile. A DTH hammer and bit is
inserted into the casing, and a 6- to 8-inch-diameter hole is made into
bedrock. The typical depth of the hole varies, but 20-30 ft (6.1-9.1 m)
is common to meet engineering needs. Rock fragments would be removed
through the top of the casing with compressed air. A steel rebar rod is
then grouted into the drilled hole and affixed to the top of the pile.
Micropiles have a casing diameter of approximately 3 to 10 in. A
DTH hammer device is used to create a hole in a manner identical to the
rock sockets as described above. The micropile casing is inserted to
depth and a steel reinforcement bar is inserted in the casing, and then
grout is pumped into the casing. The construction of the Gravina Island
Shuttle Ferry Berth could potentially utilize up to four micropiles.
Because both tension anchors and micropiles require drilling an 8-inch-
diameter hole, they are discussed together throughout this document.
Vibratory methods would also be used to remove temporary steel pipe
piles. These proposed activities and the noise they produce have the
potential to take marine mammals, by Level A harassment and Level B
harassment of marine mammals.
Each of the project components would include installation of steel
pipe piles that are 20, 24, or 30 inches in diameter (Table 1).
Temporary piles would be installed and removed with a vibratory hammer.
Some permanent piles would be battered (i.e., installed at an angle).
Approximately 50 impact strikes would be required for proofing each
permanent pile, requiring approximately 15 minutes of active impact
hammering per pile.
The estimated average installation rate for the project is one to
one and a half permanent or two temporary pipe piles per day (Table 1).
On some days,
[[Page 5985]]
more or fewer piles or partial piles may be installed. It would likely
not be possible to install an individual permanent pile to refusal with
a vibratory hammer, use DTH methods for the rock socket, impact proof,
and install the tension anchor on the same day. The construction crew
may use a single installation method for multiple piles on a single day
or find other efficiencies to increase production; the anticipated
ranges of possible values are provided in Table 1. The estimated
removal rate for temporary piles is two steel pipe piles per day. On
some days, more or fewer piles may be removed. It is estimated that the
40 temporary piles would be removed in 36 days.
In sum, approximately 91 days of pile installation and removal are
anticipated (Table 1), and of the 102 piles which ADOT anticipates it
will install, 40 of them will be installed and removed (for a total of
142 pile installations and removals).
Above-water work would consist of the installation of a concrete
float, a transfer bridge and transition ramp, dock-mounted fenders, and
utility lines. A utility and storage building would be constructed on
top of the concrete float. No in-water noise is anticipated in
association with above-water and upland construction activities, and no
associated take of marine mammals is anticipated from the noise or
visual disturbance. Therefore, above-water and upland construction
activities are not discussed further in this document.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE22.001
[[Page 5986]]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this specified activity, 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 (2021). 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 (e.g., Muto et al. 2021). All values presented
in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and
are available in the draft 2021 SARs (Muto et al. 2021; available
online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 2--Marine Mammal Species or Stocks for Which Take Is Expected and Proposed To Be Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance
ESA/MMPA status; Nbest, (CV; Nmin; Annual M/
Common name Scientific name MMPA stock strategic (Y/N) most recent abundance PBR SI \3\
\1\ survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae:
Humpback whale................. Megaptera novaeangliae Central North Pacific E, D, Y 10,103 (0.3; 7,890; 83.............. 26
2006).
Minke whale.................... Balaenoptera Alaska............... -, N N.A.(See SAR; N.A.; UND............. 0
acutorostrata. see SAR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 349 (N.A, 349; 2018). 3.5............. 0.4
Northern Resident.... -, N 302 (N.A.; 302; 2018. 2.2............. 0.2
Pacific white-sided dolphin.... Lagenorhynchus North Pacific........ -,-; N 26,880 (N.A.; N.A.; UND............. 0
obliquidens. 1990).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise................ Phocoena phocoena..... Southeast Alaska..... -, Y See SAR (see SAR; see See SAR......... 34
SAR; 2012).
Dall's porpoise................ Phocoenoides dalli.... Alaska............... -, N See SAR (see SAR; see See SAR......... 37
SAR; 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
Steller sea lion............... Eumetopias jubatus.... Eastern U.S.......... -,-, N 43,201 (see SAR; 2,592........... 112
43,201; 2017).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.................... Phoca vitulina Clarence Strait...... -, N 27,659 (See SAE; 746............. 40
richardii. 24,854; 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 (M/SI) from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 3-1 of the IHA application. However, the
spatial occurrence of gray whale and fin whale is such that take is not
expected to
[[Page 5987]]
occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation
provided here. Gray whales have not been reported by any local experts
or recorded in monitoring reports and it would be extremely unlikely
for a gray whale to enter Tongass Narrows or the small portions of
Revillagigedo Channel this project would impact. Similarly for fin
whale, sightings have not been reported and it would be unlikely for a
fin whale to enter the project area as they are generally associated
with deeper, more offshore waters. The remaining eight species (with 10
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
have proposed authorizing it.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found throughout Southeast Alaska in a variety
of marine environments, including open-ocean, near-shore waters, and
areas with strong tidal currents (Dahlheim et al. 2009). Most humpback
whales are migratory and spend winters in the breeding grounds off
either Hawaii or Mexico. Humpback whales generally arrive in Southeast
Alaska in March and return to their wintering grounds in November. Some
humpback whales depart late or arrive early to feeding grounds, and
therefore the species occurs in Southeast Alaska year-round (Straley
1990; Straley et al. 2018). Current threats to humpback whales include
vessel strikes, spills, climate change, and commercial fishing
operations (Muto et al. 2021).
Humpback whales worldwide were designated as ``endangered'' under
the Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1970, and were listed under
the ESA at its inception in 1973. However, on September 8, 2016, NMFS
published a final decision that changed the status of humpback whales
under the ESA (81 FR 62259), effective October 11, 2016. The decision
recognized the existence of 14 DPSs based on distinct breeding areas in
tropical and temperate waters. Five of the 14 DPSs were classified
under the ESA (4 endangered and 1 threatened), while the other 9 DPSs
were delisted. Humpback whales found in the project area are
predominantly members of the Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under the
ESA. However, based on a comprehensive photo-identification study,
members of the Mexico DPS, which is listed as threatened, are known to
occur in Southeast Alaska. Members of different DPSs are known to
intermix on feeding grounds; therefore, all waters off the coast of
Alaska should be considered to have ESA-listed humpback whales.
Approximately 2 percent of all humpback whales in Southeast Alaska and
northern British Columbia are members of the Mexico DPS, while all
others are members of the Hawaii DPS (Wade et al. 2021).
The DPSs of humpback whales that were identified through the ESA
listing process do not necessarily equate to the existing MMPA stocks.
The stock delineations of humpback whales under the MMPA are currently
under review. Until this review is complete, NMFS considers humpback
whales in Southeast Alaska to be part of the Central North Pacific
stock, with a status of endangered under the ESA and designations of
strategic and depleted under the MMPA (Muto et al. 2021).
Southeast Alaska is considered a biologically important area for
feeding humpback whales between March and May (Ellison et al. 2012),
though not currently designated as critical habitat (86 FR 21082; April
21, 2021). Most humpback whales migrate to other regions during the
winter to breed, but rare events of over-wintering humpbacks have been
noted, and may be attributable to staggered migration (Straley, 1990;
Straley et al. 2018). It is thought that those humpbacks that remain in
Southeast Alaska do so in response to the availability of winter
schools of fish prey, which primarily includes overwintering herring
(Straley et al. 2018). In Alaska, humpback whales filter feed on tiny
crustaceans, plankton, and small fish such as walleye pollock, Pacific
sand lance, herring, eulachon, and capelin (Witteveen et al. 2012). It
is common to observe groups of humpback whales cooperatively bubble
feeding. Group sizes in Southeast Alaska generally range from one to
four individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009).
No systematic studies have documented humpback whale abundance near
Ketchikan. Anecdotal information (See Section 4 of IHA Application)
suggests that this species is present in low numbers year-round in
Tongass Narrows, with the highest abundance during summer and fall.
Anecdotal reports suggest that humpback whales are seen only once or
twice per month, while more recently it has been suggested that the
occurrence is more regular, such as once per week on average, and more
seasonal. Humpbacks observed in Tongass Narrows are generally alone or
in groups of one to three individuals. Most humpback whales depart
Alaska for their breeding grounds in October and November, and return
in March and April. In August 2017, a group of six individuals was
observed passing through Tongass Narrows several times per day, for
several days in a row. Local residents reported that such high
abundance is common in August and September. NMFS reported that in 2018
airport ferry personnel observed a lone humpback whale in the area
every few days for several months and a group of two humpback whales
every other week (Muto et al. 2019).
In the Biological Opinion for this project, NMFS assumed the
occurrence of humpback whales in the project area to be one two
individuals twice per week, year-round. The assumption was based on
differences in abundance throughout the year, recent observations of
larger groups of whales present during summer, and a higher than
average frequency of occurrence in recent months.
The City of Ketchikan (COK) Rock Pinnacle project, which was
located approximately 4 km southeast of the proposed project site,
reported one humpback whale sighting of one individual during the
project (December 2019 through January 2020) (Sitkiewicz 2020). During
the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock Construction, located approximately 5 km
northwest of the proposed project site, protected species observers
(PSOs) observed 28 sightings of humpbacks on eighteen days of in water
work that occurred between February and September 2020, with at least
one humpback being recorded every month. A total of 42 individuals were
recorded and group sizes ranged from solo whales to pods of up to six
(Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska 2020). Humpbacks were recorded in
each month of construction, with the most individuals (10) being
recorded in May, 2020.
Humpback whales were sighted on 17 days out of 88 days of
monitoring in Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021 (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). There were no sightings in January or February,
but humpback whales were observed each month from October to December
2020 and May to June 2021 (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
There was only 1 day in June in which humpback whales were observed,
but on that day there were four groups of whales--three pairs and one
group of four (DOT&PF 2021d). In other months, humpback whale sightings
were mostly individual animals and occasionally pairs. During November
2020, a single known individual (by fluke pattern) was observed
repeatedly, accounting for 14 of the 26 sighting events that month
(DOT&PF 2020). During monitoring, humpback whales were observed on
average once a week.
[[Page 5988]]
Minke Whale
Minke whales are found throughout the northern hemisphere in polar,
temperate, and tropical waters. The population status of minke whales
is considered stable throughout most of their range. Historically,
commercial whaling reduced the population size of this species, but
given their small size, they were never a primary target of whaling and
did not experience the severe population declines as did larger
cetaceans.
The International Whaling Commission has identified a less
concentrated stock throughout the eastern Pacific. NOAA further splits
this stock between Alaska whales and resident whales of California,
Oregon, and Washington (Muto et al., 2021). Minke whales are found in
all Alaska waters. There are no population estimates for minke whales
in Alaska. Surveys in Southeast Alaska have consistently identified
individuals throughout inland waters in low numbers (Dahlheim et al.
2009).
Minke whales in Southeast Alaska are part of the Alaska stock (Muto
et al. 2021). Dedicated surveys for cetaceans in Southeast Alaska found
that minke whales were scattered throughout inland waters from Glacier
Bay and Icy Strait to Clarence Strait, with small concentrations near
the entrance of Glacier Bay (Dahlheim et al. 2009). All sightings were
of single minke whales, except for a single sighting of multiple minke
whales. Surveys took place in spring, summer, and fall, and minke
whales were present in low numbers in all seasons and years. No
information appears to be available on the winter occurrence of minke
whales in Southeast Alaska.
In Alaska, the minke whale diet consists primarily of euphausiids
and walleye pollock. Minke whales are generally found in shallow,
coastal waters within 200 m of shore (Zerbini et al. 2006) and are
almost always solitary or in small groups of 2 to 3. In Alaska,
seasonal movements are associated with feeding areas that are generally
located at the edge of the pack ice (NMFS 2014).
There are no known occurrences of minke whales within the project
area. Since their ranges extend into the project area and they have
been observed in southeast Alaska, including in Clarence Strait
(Dahlheim et al., 2009), it is possible the species could occur near
the project area. During the surveys by Dalheim et al. (2009), all but
one encounter was with a single whale and, although infrequent, minke
whales were observed during all seasons surveyed (spring, summer and
fall). No minke whales where reported during the COK Rock Pinnacle
Blasting Project (Sitkiewicz 2020). During marine mammal monitoring of
Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021, there were no minke whales observed
on 88 days of observations across 7 months (October 2020-February 2021;
May-June 2021) (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Future
observations of minke whale in the project area are expected to be
rare.
Killer Whale
Killer whales have been observed in all the world's oceans, but the
highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found at
high latitudes (NMFS 2016). Killer whales occur along the entire Alaska
coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along
the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS 2016).
Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements,
and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized
within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. This proposed IHA
considers only the Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident stock (Alaska
Resident stock), Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stock
(Northern Resident stock), and West Coast Transient stock, because all
other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration
(Muto et al., 2021).
There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales
recognized: Resident, Transient, and Offshore. The three ecotypes
differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and genetically.
Surveys between 1991 and 2007 encountered resident killer whales during
all seasons throughout Southeast Alaska. Both residents and transients
were common in a variety of habitats and all major waterways, including
protected bays and inlets. There does not appear to be strong seasonal
variation in abundance or distribution of killer whales, but there was
substantial variability between years during this study (Dahlheim et
al., 2009). Spatial distribution has been shown to vary among the
different ecotypes, with resident and, to a lesser extent, transient
killer whales more commonly observed along the continental shelf, and
offshore killer whales more commonly observed in pelagic waters (Rice
et al., 2021).
No systematic studies of killer whales have been conducted in or
around Tongass Narrows. Killer whales have been observed in Tongass
Narrows year-round and are most common during the summer Chinook salmon
run (May-July). During the Chinook salmon run, Ketchikan residents have
reported pods of 20-30 whales and during the 2016/2017 winter a pod of
5 whales was observed in Tongass Narrows (84 FR 36891; July 30, 2019).
Typical pod sizes observed within the project vicinity range from 1 to
10 animals and the frequency of killer whales passing through the
action area is estimated to be once per month (Frietag 2017). Anecdotal
reports suggest that large pods of killer whales (as many as 80
individuals, but generally between 25 and 40 individuals) are not
uncommon in May, June, and July when the king salmon are running.
During the rest of the year, killer whales occur irregularly in pods of
6 to 12 or more individuals. Large pods would be indicative of the
Alaska resident population, which travels and hunts in large social
groups.
Transient killer whales are often found in long-term stable social
units (pods) of 1 to 16 whales. Average pod sizes in Southeast Alaska
were 6.0 in spring, 5.0 in summer, and 3.9 in fall. Pod sizes of
transient whales are generally smaller than those of resident social
groups. Resident killer whales occur in larger pods, ranging from 7 to
70 whales that are seen in association with one another more than 50
percent of the time (Dahlheim et al., 2009; NMFS 2016b). In Southeast
Alaska, resident killer whale mean pod size was approximately 21.5 in
spring, 32.3 in summer, and 19.3 in fall (Dahlheim et al., 2009).
Although killer whales may occur in large numbers, they generally
form large pods and would incur fewer work stoppages than their numbers
suggest. Killer whales tend to transit through Tongass Narrows, and do
not linger in the project area.
Marine mammal observations in Tongass Narrows during 2020 and 2021
support an estimate of approximately one group of killer whales a month
in the project area. During 7 months of monitoring (October 2020-
February 2021; May-June 2021), there were five killer whale sightings
in 4 months (November, February, May, June) totaling 22 animals and
sightings occurred on 5 out of 88 days of monitoring (DOT&PF 2020,
2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Pod sizes ranged from two to eight animals
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). During the COK's monitoring
for the Rock Pinnacle Removal project in December 2019 and January
2020, no killer whales were observed (Sitkiewicz 2020). Over 8 months
of monitoring at the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock in 2020, killer whales
were only observed on two days in March (Power Systems
[[Page 5989]]
and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). These observations included a sighting
of one pod of two killer whales and a second pod of five individuals
travelling through the project area.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins are a pelagic species inhabiting
temperate waters of the North Pacific Ocean and along the coasts of
California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (Muto et al., 2021). Despite
their distribution mostly in deep, offshore waters, they may also be
found over the continental shelf and near shore waters, including
inland waters of Southeast Alaska (Ferrero and Walker 1996). The North
Pacific stock is found within the project area. The Pacific white-sided
dolphin is distributed throughout the temperate North Pacific Ocean,
north of Baja California to Alaska's southern coastline and Aleutian
Islands. The North Pacific Stock ranges from Canada into Alaska (Muto
et al., 2021).
Pacific white-sided dolphins prey on squid and small schooling fish
such as capelin, sardines, and herring (Morton 2006). They are known to
work in groups to herd schools of fish and can dive underwater for up
to 6 minutes to feed (Morton 2006). Group sizes have been reported to
range from 40 to over 1,000 animals, but groups of between 10 and 100
individuals (Stacey and Baird 1991) occur most commonly. Seasonal
movements of Pacific white-sided dolphins are not well understood, but
there is evidence of both north-south seasonal movement (Leatherwood et
al. 1984) and inshore-offshore seasonal movement (Stacey and Baird
1991).
Scientific studies and data are lacking relative to the presence or
abundance of Pacific white-sided dolphins in or near Tongass Narrows.
Although they generally prefer deeper and more-offshore waters,
anecdotal reports suggest that Pacific white-sided dolphins have
previously been observed in Tongass Narrows, although they have not
been observed entering Tongass Narrows or nearby inter-island waterways
in 15-20 years.
Pacific white-sided dolphins are rare in the inside passageways of
Southeast Alaska. Most observations occur off the outer coast or in
inland waterways near entrances to the open ocean. According to Muto et
al. (2018), aerial surveys in 1997 sighted one group of 164 Pacific
white-sided dolphins in Dixon entrance to the south of Tongass Narrows.
Surveys in April and May from 1991 to 1993 identified Pacific white-
sided dolphins in Revillagigedo Channel, Behm Canal, and Clarence
Strait (Dahlheim and Towell 1994). These areas are contiguous with the
open ocean waters of Dixon Entrance. Dalheim et al. (2009) frequently
encountered Pacific white-sided dolphin in Clarence Strait with
significant differences in mean group size and rare enough encounters
to limit the seasonality investigation to a qualitative note that
spring featured the highest number of animals observed. These
observations were noted most typically in open strait environments,
near the open ocean. Mean group size was over 20, with no recorded
winter observations nor observations made in the Nichols Passage or
Behm Canal, located on either side of the Tongass Narrows. Though
generally preferring more pelagic, open-water environments, Pacific
white-sided dolphin could be present within the action area during the
construction period. This observational data, combined with anecdotal
information, indicates there is a rare, however, slight potential for
Pacific white-sided dolphins to occur in the project area.
During marine mammal monitoring of Tongass Narrows in 2020 and
2021, no Pacific white-sided dolphins were observed on 88 days of
observations across 7 months (October 2020-February 2021; May-June
2021), which supports the anecdotal evidence that sightings of this
species are rare (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). There were
also no sightings of Pacific white-sided dolphins during the COK Rock
Pinnacle Blasting Project during monitoring surveys conducted in
December 2019 and January 2020 (Sitkiewicz 2020) or during monitoring
surveys conducted between February and September 2020 as part of the
Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock (Power Systems and Supplies of Alaska,
2020).
Harbor Porpoise
In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the harbor porpoise ranges from
Point Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and down the west coast of North
America to Point Conception, California. In Alaska, harbor porpoises
are currently divided into three stocks, based primarily on geography:
The Bering Sea stock, the Southeast Alaska stock, and the Gulf of
Alaska stock. The Southeast Alaska stock ranges from Cape Suckling to
the Canadian border (Muto et al. 2021). Harbor porpoises frequent
primarily coastal waters in Southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al. 2009) and
occur most frequently in waters less than 100 m (328 ft) deep (Hobbs
and Waite 2010; Dahlheim et al. 2015).
Abundance data for harbor porpoises in Southeast Alaska were
collected during 18 seasonal surveys spanning 22 years, from 1991 to
2012 (Dahlheim et al. 2015). The project area and Tongass Narrows fall
within the Clarence Strait to Ketchikan region, as identified by this
study for the survey effort. Harbor porpoise densities in this region
in summer were low, ranging from 0.01 to 0.02 harbor porpoises/km\2\.
Studies of harbor porpoises reported no evidence of seasonal
changes in distribution for the inland waters of Southeast Alaska
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). Their small overall size, lack of a visible
blow, low dorsal fins and overall low profile, and short surfacing time
make them difficult to observe (Dahlheim et al. 2015), likely reducing
identification and reporting of this species, and these estimates
therefore may be low.
Calving occurs from May to August; however, this can vary by
region. Harbor porpoises are often found traveling alone, or in small
groups less than 10 individuals (Schmale 2008). According to aerial
surveys of harbor porpoise abundance in Alaska conducted in 1991-1993,
mean group size in Southeast Alaska was calculated to be 1.2 animals
(Dahlheim et al. 2000).
Anecdotal reports (see Section 3 of the IHA Application) specific
to Tongass Narrows indicate that harbor porpoises are rarely observed
in the project area, and actual sightings are less common than those
suggested by Dahlheim et al. (2015). Harbor porpoises prefer shallower
waters (Dahlheim et al. 2015) and generally are not attracted to areas
with elevated levels of vessel activity and noise such as Tongass
Narrows. Harbor porpoises are expected to be present in the project
area only a few times per year. Freitag (2017 as cited in 83 FR 22009;
May 11, 2018) observed harbor porpoises in Tongass Narrows zero to one
time per month and NMFS (83 FR 22009; May 11, 2018) has estimated that
one group of harbor porpoises would enter Tongass Narrows each month.
Harbor porpoises were sighted on 3 days of in-water work during
monitoring associated with the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock, with three
sightings of 15 individuals sighted in March and April, 2020 (Power
Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Solo individuals and pods of up
to 10 were identified as swimming and travelling 2,500 m to 2,800 m
from in-water work. During marine mammal monitoring of Tongass Narrows
in 2020 and 2021, no harbor porpoises were observed on 88 days of
observations across 7 months (October 2020-February 2021; May-June
2021), which supports the anecdotal evidence that harbor porpoise
sightings are rare (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Marine
mammal
[[Page 5990]]
monitoring associated with the COK Rock Pinnacle Removal project also
did not observe any harbor porpoise during surveys conducted in
December 2019 and January 2020 (Sitkiewicz 2020).
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises are found throughout the North Pacific, from
southern Japan to southern California north to the Bering Sea. Dall's
porpoises are not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. All
Dall's porpoises in Alaska are members of the Alaska stock, and those
off California, Oregon, and Washington are part of a separate stock.
This species can be found in offshore, inshore, and nearshore habitat,
but prefer waters more than 600 ft (180 m) deep (Jefferson 2009).
No systematic studies of Dall's porpoise abundance or distribution
have occurred in Tongass Narrows; however, surveys for cetaceans
throughout Southeast Alaska were conducted between 1991 and 2007
(Dahlheim et al. 2009). The species is generally found in waters in
excess of 600 ft (183 m) deep (Dahlheim et al. 2009, Jefferson 2009),
which do not occur in Tongass Narrows. Jefferson et al. (2019) presents
historical survey data showing few sightings in the Ketchikan area, and
based on these occurrence patterns, concludes that Dall's porpoise
rarely come into narrow waterways, like Tongass Narrows. Anecdotal
reports suggest that Dall's porpoises are found northwest of Ketchikan
near the Guard Islands, where waters are deeper, as well as in deeper
waters to the southeast of Tongass Narrows. Should Dall's porpoises
occur in the project area, they would likely be present in March or
April, given past observations in the region. Despite generalized water
depth preferences, Dall's porpoises may occur in shallower waters. This
species has a tendency to bow-ride with vessels and may occur in the
project area incidentally a few times per year.
The mean group size in Southeast Alaska is estimated at
approximately three individuals (Dahlheim et al. 2009; Jefferson 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, 83 FR 37473; August 1, 2018).
Dall's porpoises were positively identified on 2 days of in-water
work during monitoring associated with the Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock
(Power Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). A pod of three and a pod
of five were recorded travelling at least 3,000 m from the construction
site in April and May, respectively. During marine mammal monitoring of
Tongass Narrows in 2020 and 2021, there were sightings of Dall's
porpoises on 2 out of 88 days of observations across 7 months (October
2020-February 2021; May-June 2021)--once in November 2020 and once in
February 2021. The pod sighted in November contained six animals; the
pod observed in February had 10. Based on this recent data, there is no
known pattern to their attendance in the project area, but they do
occur rarely (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the
ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Steller sea lions were
subsequently partitioned into the western and eastern DPSs (and MMPA
stocks) in 1997 (62 FR 24345; May 5, 1997). The eastern DPS remained
classified as threatened until it was delisted in November 2013. The
current minimum abundance estimate for the eastern DPS of Steller sea
lions is 43,201 individuals (Muto et al. 2021). The western DPS (those
individuals west of 144[deg] W longitude or Cape Suckling, Alaska) was
upgraded to endangered status following separation of the DPSs, and it
remains endangered today. There is regular movement of both DPSs across
this 144[deg] W longitude boundary (Jemison et al. 2013), however, due
to the distance from this DPS boundary, it is likely that only eastern
DPS Steller sea lions are present in the project area. Therefore,
animals potentially affected by the project are assumed to be part of
the eastern DPS.
There are several mapped and regularly monitored long-term Steller
sea lion haulouts surrounding Ketchikan, such as West Rocks (36 miles/
58 km) or Nose Point (37 miles/60 km), but none are known to occur
within Tongass Narrows (Fritz et al. 2015). The nearest known Steller
sea lion haulout is located approximately 20 miles (58 km) west/
northwest of Ketchikan on Grindall Island (Figure 4-1 in application).
Summer counts of adult and juvenile sea lions at this haulout since
2000 have averaged approximately 191 individuals, with a range from 6
in 2009 to 378 in 2008. Only two winter surveys of this haulout have
occurred. In March 1993, a total of 239 individuals were recorded, and
in December 1994, a total of 211 individuals were recorded. No sea lion
pups have been observed at this haulout during surveys. Although this
is a limited and dated sample, it suggests that abundance may be
consistent year-round at the Grindall Island haulout.
No systematic studies of sea lion abundance or distribution have
occurred in Tongass Narrows. Anecdotal reports suggest that Steller sea
lions may be found in Tongass Narrows year-round, with an increase in
abundance from March to early May during the herring spawning season,
and another increase in late summer associated with salmon runs.
Overall sea lion presence in Tongass Narrows tends to be lower in
summer than in winter (FHWA 2017). During summer, Steller sea lions may
aggregate outside the project area, at rookery and haulout sites.
Monitoring during construction of the Ketchikan Ferry Terminal in
summer (July 16 through August 17, 2016) did not record any Steller sea
lions (ADOT&PF 2015); however, monitoring during construction of the
Ward Cove Dock, located approximately 6 km northwest of the Project
site, recorded 181 individual sea lions on 44 days between February and
September 2020 (Power Systems & Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Most
sightings occurred in February (45 sightings of 88 sea lions) and March
(34 sightings of 45 sea lions); the fewest number of sightings were
observed in May (1 sighting of 1 sea lion) (Power Systems & Supplies of
Alaska, 2020). Sightings were of single individuals, pairs, and herds
of up to 10 individuals.
Sea lions are known to transit through Tongass Narrows while
pursuing prey. Steller sea lions are also known to follow fishing
vessels, and may congregate in small numbers at seafood processing
facilities and hatcheries or at the mouths of rivers and creeks
containing hatcheries, where large numbers of salmon congregate in late
summer. Three seafood processing facilities are located east of the
proposed berth location on Revilla Island, and two salmon hatcheries
operated by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) are located
east of the project area. Steller sea lions may aggregate near the
mouth of Ketchikan Creek, where a hatchery upstream supports a summer
salmon run. The Creek mouth is more than 4 km (2.5 mi) from both ferry
berth sites, and is positioned behind the cruise ship terminal and
within the small boat harbor. In addition to these locations, anecdotal
information from a local kayaking company suggests that there are
Steller sea lions present at Gravina Point, near the southwest entrance
to Tongass Narrows.
A total of 181 Steller sea lions were sighted on 44 separate days
during all months of Ward Cove Cruise Ship Dock construction (February
through September, 2020) (Power Systems and
[[Page 5991]]
Supplies of Alaska, 2020). Most sightings occurred in February and
March and the fewest sightings were in May. Sightings were of single
individuals, pairs, and herds of up to 10 individuals.
The DOT&PF implemented a marine mammal monitoring program in
Tongass Narrows for recent previous construction components of the
Tongass Narrows Project (84 FR 34134; July 17, 2019). Monitoring took
place from October 2020 through February 2021 and May through June
2021, and results indicated that Steller sea lion numbers were highest
in January and February (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Steller sea lions were observed in the Tongass Narrows Project area on
49 of 88 days between October 2020 and June 2021 (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). They were observed in every month that
observations took place (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Over
the course of the 7 months of monitoring, there were 77 sightings of 92
individual animals (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Sightings
of Steller sea lions were most frequent in January and February and
least common in May and June (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Sightings were primarily of single animals, but animals were also
present in pairs and groups up to five sea lions (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). This is consistent with Freitag (2017 as cited in
83 FR 22009; May 11, 2018), though groups of up to 80 individuals have
been observed (HDR, Inc. 2003). On average over the course of a year,
Steller sea lions occur in Tongass Narrows approximately three or four
times per week (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts
of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast
Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the
Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the
Pribilof Islands. In 2010, harbor seals in Alaska were partitioned into
12 separate stocks based largely on genetic structure (Allen and
Angliss 2010). Harbor seals in Tongass Narrows are recognized as part
of the Clarence Strait stock. Distribution of the Clarence Strait stock
ranges from the east coast of Prince of Wales Island from Cape Chacon
north through Clarence Strait to Point Baker and along the east coast
of Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands north to Bay Point, including Ernest
Sound, Behm Canal, and Pearse Canal (Muto et al. 2021). The latest
stock assessment analysis indicates that the current 8-year estimate of
the Clarence Strait population trend is +138 seals per year, with a
probability that the stock is decreasing of 0.413 (Muto et al. 2021).
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial
ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters.
Harbor seals are generally non-migratory, with local movements
associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food
availability, and reproduction (Muto, et al. 2021).
No systematic studies of harbor seal abundance or distribution have
occurred in Tongass Narrows. Aerial surveys conducted in August 2011
did not record any harbor seal haulouts in Tongass Narrows, but several
haulouts were located on the outer shores of Gravina Island (London et
al. 2015). There is no known harbor seal haulout in Tongass Narrows
although seals have been observed hauled out on docks in Ketchikan
Harbor. The closest listed haulout is located off the tip of Gravina
Island, approximately 8 km (5 mi) northwest of Ward Cove (AFSC 2018).
Anecdotal observations indicate that harbor seals are common in
Tongass Narrows, although no data exist to quantify abundance. Two
salmon hatcheries operated by ADF&G are located east of the project
area. Like Steller sea lions, harbor seals may aggregate near the mouth
of Ketchikan Creek when salmon are running in summer. The creek mouth
is more than 4 km (2.5 mi) from the project component sites, and is
positioned behind both the cruise ship terminal and within the small
boat harbor. In the project area, they tend to be more abundant during
spring, summer and fall months when salmon are present in Ward Creek.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that harbor seals typically occur in
groups of 1-3 animals in Ward Cove (Spokely 2019). They were not
observed in Tongass Narrows during a combined 63.5 hours of marine
mammal monitoring that took place in 2001 and 2016 (OSSA 2001,
Turnagain 2016). The COK conducted pinnacle rock blasting in December
2019 and January 2020 near the vicinity of the proposed 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 sighted during every month of construction
(February through September, 2020) associated with the Ward Cove Cruise
Ship Dock, with most sightings in February and March and the fewest in
July (Power Systems and Supplies of Alaska, 2020). There were 247
sighting events of 271 individuals. Sighting events were of solo
individuals, pairs, and the occasional group of three.
Marine mammal monitoring occurred near the project site from
October 2020 to February 2021 and resumed in May 2021 during Phase 1 of
the previously issued IHA (85 FR 673; January 7, 2020). Harbor seals
were observed in the Tongass Narrows Project area in every month in
which observations took place, except during October 2020 when only 3
days of monitoring occurred (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Harbor seals were sighted on 68 days out of 88 days of monitoring
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). They were mostly sightings
of single animals, but animals were also present in pairs and groups up
to five seals (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Sightings of
harbor seals were consistent over the course of 7 months of
intermittent monitoring; they were observed 5 to 6 days per week on
average (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al.
1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 3.
[[Page 5992]]
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.
Eight marine mammal species (six cetacean and two pinniped (one otariid
and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with
the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the
cetacean species that may be present, two are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 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., harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise and Kogia spp.).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity
can occur from impact and vibratory pile driving and removal and use of
DTH equipment. The effects of underwater noise from ADOT's proposed
activities have the potential to result in Level A or Level B
harassment of marine mammals in the action area.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far (ANSI 1995). The sound level of an area is
defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al. 1995). The result is that, depending
on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity
may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.
In-water construction activities associated with the project would
include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, and
use of DTH equipment. The sounds produced by these activities fall into
one of two general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive
sounds (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving)
are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and
consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid
decay (ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). Non-impulsive sounds (e.g.
aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or
tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically
do not have the high peak sound pressure with rapid rise/decay time
that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). The
distinction between these two sound types is important because they
have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et al. 2007).
Three types of hammers would be used on this project: Impact,
vibratory, and DTH. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping and/
or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the
substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid
rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination
(Hastings and Popper 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by
vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into
the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than
impact hammers. Peak Sound Pressure Levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or
greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during
impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al.
[[Page 5993]]
2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of
injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time
(Nedwell and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al. 2005).
A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the
bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with
a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic)
component integrated into to the DTH hammer to increase speed of
progress through the substrate (i.e., it is similar to a ``hammer
drill'' hand tool). The sounds produced by the DTH method contain both
a continuous non-impulsive component from the drilling action and an
impulsive component from the hammering effect. Therefore, we treat DTH
systems as both impulsive and continuous, non-impulsive sound source
types simultaneously.
The likely or possible impacts of ADOT's proposed activity on
marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical
presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine
mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic
stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile
installation and removal and use of DTH.
Acoustic Impacts
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving and removal and DTH is the primary means
by which marine mammals may be harassed from ADOT's specified activity.
In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude
from none to severe (Southall et al. 2007, 2019). In general, exposure
to pile driving and DTH noise has the potential to result in auditory
threshold shifts and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary
cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior).
Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable
physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional
noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by
marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and
predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving and DTH noise
on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not
limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the
species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf),
duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal,
received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history
with exposure (Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall et al. 2007). Here we
discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed by
behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014), and the
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and
spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold
shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al. 1958, 1959; Ward 1960;
Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al.
2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the
exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor
seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in
marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical
reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels
inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see
Southall et al. 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et
al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2015),
marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At
low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small
and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher
SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear
relationships with the noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory
masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al. 2007), so we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis)) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed in trained
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset
(Reichmuth et al. 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran 2015). Additionally, the existing marine
[[Page 5994]]
mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these
species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for
mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for
further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al.
(2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in
NMFS (2018).
Installing piles requires a combination of impact pile driving,
vibratory pile driving, and DTH. For the project, these activities may
occur at the same time (up to two hammers of any combination of hammer/
drill type), though such an occurrence is anticipated to be infrequent
and for short durations on any given day, given that pile installation
and removal occurs intermittently to allow for adjusting piles and
measuring and documenting progress. Therefore, there would likely be
pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these
pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the
project area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the
potential for TS declines.
Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving and
removal and DTH also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine
mammals. Available studies show wide variation in response to
underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically
how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to
an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small
distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to
the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding
area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC
2005).
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw
clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on
numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory
sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al.
2007; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary
not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other
factors (Ellison et al. 2012), and can vary depending on
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans,
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial
sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B and C of Southall et
al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.
2001; Nowacek et al. 2004; Madsen et al. 2006; Yazvenko et al. 2007). A
determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
In 2016, ADOT documented observations of marine mammals during
construction activities (i.e., pile driving and DTH) at the Kodiak
Ferry Dock (ABR 2016) in the Gulf of Alaska. In the marine mammal
monitoring report for that project, 1,281 Steller sea lions were
observed within the estimated Level B harassment zone during pile
driving or DTH (i.e., documented as potential take by Level B
harassment). Of these, 19 individuals demonstrated an alert behavior, 7
were fleeing, and 19 swam away from the project site. All other animals
(98 percent) were engaged in activities such as milling, foraging, or
fighting and did not change their behavior. In addition, two sea lions
approached within 20 m of active vibratory pile driving activities.
Three harbor seals were observed within the disturbance zone during
pile driving activities; none of them displayed disturbance behaviors.
Fifteen killer whales and three harbor porpoise were also observed
within the Level B harassment zone during pile driving. The killer
whales were travelling or milling while all harbor porpoises were
travelling. No signs of disturbance were noted for either of these
species. Given the similarities in species, activities, and habitat, we
expect similar behavioral responses of marine mammals to the ADOT's
specified activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be
temporary and localized (e.g., small area movements). Monitoring
reports from other recent pile driving and DTH projects in Alaska have
observed similar behaviors, for example, the Biorka Island Dock
Replacement Project (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-faa-biorka-island-dock-replacement-project-sitka-ak).
Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg
2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical
(in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress
typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al. 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and
[[Page 5995]]
``distress'' is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an
animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the
stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress
response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an
animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the
energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted
from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal
replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal
function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al. 1996; Hood et al. 1998; Jessop et al. 2003;
Krausman et al. 2004; Lankford et al. 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano
et al. 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g.,
Romano et al. 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC 2003), however
distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of
marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.
Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator
avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound
at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may
occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked.
Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving
and removal and DTH that have the potential to cause behavioral
harassment, depending on their distance from these activities.
Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would
result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.
Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are
swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise
levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that
pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may
result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above
water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses
similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For
instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to
exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in
vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move
further from the source. However, these animals would previously have
been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the
behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than
those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment
of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of
potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of
incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is
warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
ADOT's proposed activities at the project area would not result in
permanent negative impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals,
but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as
forage fish and may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion
above). There are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom
structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals
present in the marine waters of the project area during the
construction window, but there are times of increased foraging during
periods of forage fish and salmonid spawning. ADOT's construction
activities in Tongass Narrows could have localized, temporary impacts
on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water sound
pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise
levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and
adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area
(see discussion below). During DTH, impact and vibratory pile driving
or removal, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify a
portion of Tongass Narrows and nearby waters where both fishes and
mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine
mammals may avoid the area during construction, however, displacement
due to noise is expected to be temporary and is not expected to result
in long-term effects to the individuals or populations. Construction
activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary
impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater and
airborne sound.
The area likely impacted by the project includes much of Tongass
Narrows, but overall this area is relatively small compared to the
available habitat in the surrounding area including Revillagigedo
Channel, Behm Canal, and Clarence Strait. Pile installation/removal and
DTH may temporarily increase turbidity resulting from suspended
sediments. Any increases would be temporary, localized, and minimal. In
general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to
about a 25-ft radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 1980). Cetaceans
are not expected to be close enough to the project pile driving areas
to experience effects of turbidity, and pinnipeds could avoid localized
areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity
levels is expected to minimal for marine mammals. Furthermore, pile
driving and removal at the project site would not obstruct movements or
migration of marine mammals.
In-water Construction Effects on Potential Prey--Construction
activities
[[Page 5996]]
would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving and DTH) and
intermittent (i.e. impact driving and DTH) sounds. Sound may affect
marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or
distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish,
zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and
location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on
known marine mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick and Mann 1999; Fay 2009).
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures,
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of
surrounding water (Fay et al. 2008). The potential effects of noise on
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related
injuries), and mortality.
Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or
subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of
fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past
exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other
environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several
studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound
energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on
fish; several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear
bridge construction projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan 2001, 2002; Popper
and Hastings 2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse
sounds might affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes,
potentially impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic
costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al. 1992; Skalski
et al. 1992; Santulli et al. 1999; Paxton et al. 2017). However, some
studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena
et al. 2013; Wardle et al. 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et
al. 2012).
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours
for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish
is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long.
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile
driving (Halvorsen et al. 2012b; Casper et al. 2013).
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving and removal and
DTH activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral
avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area
after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal
recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral
avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly
large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby
vicinity in Revillagigedo Channel, Behm Canal, and Clarence Strait.
Additionally, the City of Ketchikan within Tongass Narrows has a busy
industrial water front, and human impact lessens the value of the area
as foraging habitat. There are times of known seasonal marine mammal
foraging in Tongass Narrows around fish processing/hatchery
infrastructure or when fish are congregating, but the impacted areas of
Tongass Narrows are a small portion of the total foraging habitat
available in the region. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey
species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short
timeframe of the project.
Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have
the potential to adversely affect eulachon, herring, and juvenile
salmonid outmigratory routes in the project area. Salmon and forage
fish, like eulachon and herring, form a significant prey base for
Steller sea lions and are major components of the diet of many other
marine mammal species that occur in the project area. Increased
turbidity is expected to occur only in the immediate vicinity of
construction activities and to dissipate quickly with tidal cycles.
Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates any
effects on fish are expected to be minor.
Additionally, the presence of transient killer whales means some
marine mammal species are also possible prey (harbor seals, harbor
porpoises). ADOT's pile driving, pile removal and DTH activities are
expected to result in limited instances of take by Level B and Level A
harassment on these smaller marine mammals. That, as well as the fact
that ADOT is impacting a small portion of the total available marine
mammal habitat means that there would be minimal impact on these marine
mammals as prey.
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving and DTH events and the small area being
affected relative to available nearby habitat, pile driving and DTH
activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a
permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish
species or other prey. Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified
activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on
any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts
to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or
long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute
to adverse impacts on their populations.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic sources (i.e., impact and vibratory pile driving and
DTH) have 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
mysticetes, high frequency species and phocids because predicted
auditory injury zones are larger than for mid-frequency species and
otariids. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency
species and otariids. The proposed mitigation and monitoring
[[Page 5997]]
measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the
extent practicable.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed 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).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007, Ellison
et al. 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the
practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both
predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to
be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment
when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of
120 dB re 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa) (root mean square (rms)) for
continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, DTH) and above 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or
intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. This take estimation
includes disruption of behavioral patterns resulting directly in
response to noise exposure (e.g., avoidance), as well as that resulting
indirectly from associated impacts such as TTS or masking. ADOT's
proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile
driving/removal and DTH) and impulsive (impact pile driving and DTH)
sources, and therefore both the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
thresholds are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). ADOT's proposed activity includes the use
of impulsive (impact pile driving and DTH) and non-impulsive (vibratory
pile driving/removal and DTH) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 4 below. 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: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory
pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and DTH).
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level
B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in
this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations
to develop source levels for the various pile types,
[[Page 5998]]
sizes and methods (Table 5). Note that piles of differing sizes have
different sound source levels (SSLs).
Empirical data from recent ADOT sound source verification (SSV)
studies at Ketchikan were used to estimate SSLs for vibratory and
impact driving of 30-inch steel pipe piles (Denes et al. 2016). Data
from Ketchikan was used because of its proximity to this proposed
project in Tongass Narrows. However, the use of data from Alaska sites
was not appropriate in all instances. Details are described below.
For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel piles, data from a Navy pile
driving project in the Puget Sound, WA was reviewed (Navy 2015). From
this review, ADOT determined the Navy's suggested source value of 161
dB rms was an appropriate proxy source value, and NMFS concurs. Because
the source value of smaller piles of the same general type (steel in
this case) are not expected to exceed a larger pile, the same 161 dB
rms source value was used for 20-inch steel piles. This assumption
conforms with source values presented in Navy (2015) for a project
using 16-inch steel piles at Naval Base Kitsap in Bangor, WA.
ADOT used source values of 177 dB SEL and 190 dB rms for impact
driving of 24-inch and 20-inch steel piles. These values were
determined based on summary values presented in Caltrans (2015) for
impact driving of 24-inch steel piles. NMFS concurs that the same
source value was an acceptable proxy for impact driving of 20-inch
steel piles.
Sound pressure levels in the water column resulting from DTH are
not well studied. Because DTH hole creation includes both impulsive and
continuous components, NMFS guidance currently recommends that it be
treated as a continuous sound for Level B calculations and as an
impulsive sound for Level A calculations (Table 11). In the absence of
data specific to different hole sizes, current NMFS guidance recommends
that calculation of Level B zones for DTH use the same continuous SSL
of 167 dB SEL for all hole sizes (Heyvaert and Reyff 2021). Recommended
SSLs for 30-inch and 24-inch holes as well as 8-inch holes for tension
anchors and micropiles for use in the calculation of Level A harassment
thresholds are provided by current NMFS guidance and in Table 5.
Table 5--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile Installation, DTH,
and Vibratory Pile Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and pile type SSL at 10 m Literature source
Vibratory hammer dB rms ........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles................... 162 Denes et al. 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel piles................... 161 Navy 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-inch steel piles................... 161 Navy 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH of rock sockets and tension dB rms
anchors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pile diameters.................... 167 Heyvaert and Reyff 2021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH of rock sockets and tension
anchors dB SELss dB peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch rock socket.................. 164 194 Reyff and Heyvaert
2019; Reyff 2020;
Denes et al. 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch rock socket.................. 159 184 Heyvaert and Reyff
2021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-inch tension anchor/micropile...... 144 170 Reyff 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact hammer dB rms dB SEL dB peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-inch steel piles................. 195 181 209 Denes et al. 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch steel piles................. 190 177 203 Caltrans 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-inch steel piles................. 190 177 202 Caltrans 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It is assumed that noise levels during pile installation and removal are similar. SEL = sound exposure
level; dB peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square.
Simultaneous use of two impact, vibratory, or DTH hammers, or any
combination of those equipment, could occur. Such occurrences are
anticipated to be infrequent, would be for short durations on any given
day, and ADOT anticipates that no more than two hammers would be
operated concurrently. Simultaneous use of two hammers or DTH systems
could occur at the same project site, or at two different, but nearby
project sites. Simultaneous use of hammers could result in increased
SPLs and harassment zone sizes given the proximity of the component
driving sites and the physical rules of decibel addition. ADOT
anticipates that concurrent use of two hammers producing continuous
noise could occur on 44 days, which is half the anticipated number of
days of construction (91 days) and represents complete overlap between
the two contracts and/or represents use of two hammers by a single
contractor. Although it is unlikely that overlap would be complete,
ADOT anticipates, and NMFS concurs, this scenario represents the
potential worst case scenario, given that a more accurate estimate is
not possible, and concurrent operation of hammers would be incidental.
Given that the use of more than one hammer for pile installation on the
same day (whether simultaneous or not) would increase the number of
piles installed per day, this would be anticipated to result in a
reduction of the total number of days of pile installation. Table 6
shows how potential scenarios would reduce the total number of pile
driving days and weeks. However, as described in the Marine Mammal
Occurrence and Take Calculation and Estimation section below, ADOT has
conservatively calculated take with the assumption that pile driving
would occur on all 91 days.
[[Page 5999]]
Table 6--Calculated Reduction of Pile Driving Days Based on Percentage of Project Days With Two Hammers in Use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days of work
Days of completed Remaining days Total number
Percent overlap overlap during overlap of work with of days of Weeks of work
(2 hammers) single hammer work
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................... 0.0 0.0 91.0 91.0 15.2
10.............................. 9.1 18.2 72.8 81.9 13.7
20.............................. 18.2 36.4 54.6 72.8 12.1
30.............................. 27.3 54.6 36.4 63.7 10.6
40.............................. 36.4 72.8 18.2 54.6 9.1
50.............................. 45.5 91.0 0.0 45.5 7.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS (2018b) handles overlapping sound fields created by the use of
more than one hammer differently for impulsive (impact hammer and Level
A harassment zones for drilling with a DTH hammer) and continuous sound
sources (vibratory hammer and Level B harassment zones for drilling
with a DTH hammer; Table 7) and differently for impulsive sources with
rapid impulse rates of multiple strikes per second (DTH) and slow
impulse rates (impact hammering) (NMFS 2021). It is unlikely that the
two impact hammers would strike at the same instant, and therefore, the
SPLs would not be adjusted regardless of the distance between impact
hammers. In this case, each impact hammer would be considered to have
its own independent Level A harassment and Level B harassment zones.
When two DTH hammers operate simultaneously their continuous sound
components overlap completely in time. When the Level B isopleth of one
DTH sound source encompasses the isopleth of another DTH sound source,
the sources are considered additive and combined using the following
rules (Table 7). The method described below was based on one created by
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and has been
updated and modified by NMFS (WSDOT 2020). For addition of two
simultaneous DTH hammers, the difference between the two SSLs is
calculated, and if that difference is between 0 and 1 dB, 3 dB are
added to the higher SSL; if difference is between 2 or 3 dB, 2 dB are
added to the highest SSL; if the difference is between 4 to 9 dB, 1 dB
is added to the highest SSL; and with differences of 10 or more
decibels, there is no addition.
When two continuous noise sources, such as vibratory hammers, have
overlapping sound fields, there is potential for higher sound levels
than for non-overlapping sources.
When two or more vibratory hammers are used simultaneously, and the
isopleth of one sound source encompasses the isopleth of another sound
source, the sources are considered additive and source levels are
combined using the rules in Table 7, similar to described above for
DTH.
Table 7--Rules for Combining Sound Source Levels Generated During Pile Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammer types Difference in SSL Level A zones Level B zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory, Impact................. Any.................. Use impact zones.......... Use largest zone.
Impact, Impact.................... Any.................. Use zones for each pile Use zone for each pile
size and number of size.
strikes.
Vibratory, Vibratory or DTH, DTH.. 0 or 1 dB............ Add 3 dB to the higher Add 3 dB to the higher
2 or 3 dB............ source level. source level.
Add 2 dB to the higher Add 2 dB to the higher
source level. source level.
4 to 9 dB............ Add 1 dB to the higher Add 1 dB to the higher
10 dB or more........ source level. source level.
Add 0 dB to the higher Add 0 dB to the higher
source level. source level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During pile driving, it is common for pile installation to start
and stop multiple times as each pile is adjusted and its progress is
measured and documented, though as stated above, for short durations,
it is anticipated that multiple hammers could be in use simultaneously.
Following an approach modified from WSDOT in their Biological
Assessment manual (WSDOT 2020) and described in Table 8, decibel
addition calculations were carried out for possible combinations of
pile driving and DTH throughout the project area. The source levels
included in Table 8 are used to estimate the Level A harassment zones
and the Level B harassment zones.
Table 8--Combined SSLs (dB at 10 m) Generated During Pile Installation and Removal for Combinations of Two Pieces of Equipment: Impact Hammer, Vibratory
Hammer, and Down-the-Hole Drill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory (RMS) DTH (RMS) DTH (SEL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method Pile diameter 20 24 30 8 24 30 8 24 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSL 161 161 162 167 167 167 144 159 164
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory (RMS)...................................... 20 161 164 164 165 168 168 168 ....... ....... .......
24 161 164 164 165 168 168 168 ....... ....... .......
30 162 165 165 165 168 168 168 ....... ....... .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH (RMS)............................................ 8 167 168 168 168 170 170 170 ....... ....... .......
[[Page 6000]]
24 167 168 168 168 170 170 170 ....... ....... .......
30 167 168 168 168 170 170 170 ....... ....... .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH (SEL)............................................ 8 144 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 147 159 164
24 159 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 159 162 165
30 164 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 164 165 167
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No addition is warranted for impact pile driving in combination
with vibratory or impact pile driving or DTH (NMFS 2021).
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 ADOT's proposed activity in the absence of specific
modelling.
All Level B harassment isopleths are reported in Table 9 and Table
10 below. It should be noted that based on the geography of Tongass
Narrows and the surrounding islands, sound would not reach the full
distance of the Level B harassment isopleth in most directions.
Generally, due to interaction with land, only a thin slice of the
possible area is ensonified to the full distance of the Level B
harassment isopleth.
The size of the Level B harassment zone during concurrent operation
of two vibratory or DTH hammers would depend on the combination of
sound sources and the decibel addition of two hammers producing
continuous noise. Table 9 shows the distances to Level B harassment
isopleths during simultaneous hammering from two sources, based on the
combined SSL. Because the calculated Level B harassment isopleths for
two sources are dependent upon the combined SSL, the Level B harassment
zone for each combined sound source level included in Table 9 is
consistent, regardless of the equipment combination. Please refer to
Table 8 to determine which sound sources apply to each Combined SSL.
As noted previously, pile installation often involves numerous
stops and starts of the hammer for each pile. Therefore, decibel
addition is applied only when the adjacent continuous sound sources
experience overlapping sound fields, which generally requires close
proximity of driving locations.
Table 9-- Level B Harassment Isopleths for Multiple Vibratory Hammer
Additions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
harassment
Combined SSL (dB) isopleth (m)
\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
164..................................................... 8,577
165..................................................... 10,000
166..................................................... 11,659
167..................................................... 13,594
168..................................................... 15,849
169..................................................... 18,478
170..................................................... 21,544
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These larger zones are truncated to the southeast by islands, which
prevent propagation of sound in that direction beyond the confines of
Tongass Narrows. To the northwest of Tongass Narrows, combined sound
levels that exceed 167 dB rms extend into Clarence Strait before
attenuating to sound levels that are anticipated to be below 120 dB
rms.
Table 10--Level B Harassment Isopleths for Single Hammer Use by Activity
and Pile Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Activity Pile diameter harassment
(inch) isopleth (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation.................. 30 6,310
24 5,412
20 ..............
Vibratory Removal....................... 24 ..............
DTH Rock Sockets........................ 30 13,594
[[Page 6001]]
24 ..............
DTH Tension Anchor/Micropile............ 8 ..............
Impact Installation..................... 30 2,154
24 1,000
20 1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 takes by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer
the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated
3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop
ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as
pile driving or removal and DTH using any of the methods discussed
above, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if
a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the
activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet are
reported in Table 11 and Table 12, and the resulting isopleths are
reported below in Table 13 and Table 14. Pile installation and removal
can occur at variable rates, from a few minutes one day to many hours
the next. ADOT anticipates that one permanent pile would be installed
per day on 27 non-consecutive days, two temporary piles would be
installed per day on 10 non-consecutive days, and two temporary piles
would be removed per day on 10 days.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 6002]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE22.002
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Regarding implications for Level A harassment zones when two
vibratory hammers are operating concurrently, given the small size of
the estimated Level A harassment isopleths for all hearing groups
during vibratory pile driving, the zone of any two hammers would not be
expected to overlap. Therefore, compounding effects of multiple
vibratory hammers operating concurrently are not anticipated, and NMFS
has treated each source independently.
Regarding implications for Level A harassment zones when one
vibratory hammer and one DTH hammer are operating concurrently,
combining isopleths for these sources is difficult for a variety of
reasons. First, vibratory pile driving relies upon non-impulsive PTS
thresholds, while DTH/rock hammers use impulsive thresholds. Second,
vibratory pile driving account for the duration to drive a pile, while
DTH account for strikes per pile. Thus, it is difficult to measure
sound on the same scale and combine isopleths from these impulsive and
non-impulsive, continuous sources. Therefore, NMFS has treated each
source independently at this time.
Regarding the operation of two DTH hammers concurrently, since DTH
hammers are capable of multiple strikes per second, there is potential
for multiple DTH/rock hammer sources' isopleths to overlap in space and
time (a higher strike rate indicates a greater potential for overlap).
Therefore, NMFS has calculated distances to Level A harassment
isopleths, by hearing group
[[Page 6003]]
for simultaneous use of two DTH hammers (Table 14), using NMFS' User
Spreadsheet. The inputs for these calculations are outlined in Table
12. When the Level A isopleth of one DTH sound source encompasses the
isopleth of another DTH sound source, the sources are considered
additive and combined using the rules in Table 7 as described above.
The number of piles per day is altered to reflect only a single pile
for all those that overlap in space and time (i.e., no double counting
of overlapping piles). The maximum strike rate and duration of the two
DTH systems is used in the User Spreadsheet calculations.
Table 12--NMFS User Spreadsheet Inputs for Simultaneous Use of Two DTH
Hammers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.2) DTH pile
Spreadsheet tab used driving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)....................... 2
SSL (dB SEL at 10m): \a\
8-in pile/8-in pile................................. 147
8-in pile, 24-in pile............................... 159
8-in pile, 30-in pile............................... 164
24-in pile, 24-in pile.............................. 162
24-in pile, 30-in pile.............................. 165
30-in pile, 30-in pile.............................. 167
Activity duration (minutes) within 24 hours \b\......... 240
Number of piles per day \b\............................. 1
Strike rate (strikes per second)........................ \c\ 15 or
25.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ SSL reflects the combined SSLs calculated in Table 8.
\b\ ADOT anticipates that DTH could occur at one site for up to 10 hours
(600 minutes) per day, and overlap between two sites could occur for
up to 4 hours (240 minutes) per day. Since the potential overlap in
sources is accounted for in the SSL adjustment, and the total
potential duration (even with two hammers) is accounted for in the
``Activity duration (minutes) within 24 hours,'' the ``Number of piles
per day'' is assumed to be 1.
\c\ 25.83 for combinations that include 8-in piles. 15 for all other
combinations.
Level A harassment thresholds for impulsive sound sources (impact
pile driving and DTH) are defined for both SELcum and Peak SPL with the
threshold that results in the largest modeled isopleth for each marine
mammal hearing group used to establish the Level A harassment isopleth.
In this project, Level A harassment isopleths based on SELcum were
always larger than those based on Peak SPL (for both single hammer use
and simultaneous use of two hammers). It should be noted that there is
a duration component when calculating the Level A harassment isopleth
based on SELcum, and this duration depends on the number of piles that
would be driven in a day and strikes per pile. For some activities,
ADOT has proposed to drive variable numbers of piles per day throughout
the project (See ``Average Piles per Day (Range)'' in Table 1), and
determine at the beginning of each pile driving day, the maximum number
or duration piles would be driven that day. Here, this flexibility has
been accounted for by modeling multiple durations for the activity, and
determining the relevant isopleths.
Table 13--Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths, by Hearing Group, and Area of Level A Harassment Zones, for Single Hammer Use During Pile
Installation and Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment isopleth (m) Level A
------------------------------------------------------- harassment
Activity Pile Minutes per pile or areas (km\2\)
diameter(s) strikes per pile LF MF HF PW OW all hearing
groups \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation............... 30 60 minutes................ 8 1 12 5 1 <0.1
\b\ 24 60 minutes................ 7 1 11 5 1 <0.1
20 60 minutes................ 7 1 11 5 1 <0.1
Vibratory Removal.................... 24 60 minutes................ 7 1 11 5 1 <0.1
DTH Rock Sockets..................... 30 60 minutes................ 773 28 920 414 31 <0.9
300 minutes............... 2,258 81 2,690 1,209 88 <3.5
600 minutes............... 3,584 128 4,269 1,918 140 <6.6
24 60 minutes................ 359 13 427 192 15 <0.2
300 minutes............... 1,048 38 1,249 561 41 <1.4
600 minutes............... 1,664 60 1,982 891 65 <2.4
DTH Tension Anchor................... 8 120 minutes............... 82 3 98 44 4 <0.1
240 minutes............... 130 5 155 70 6 <0.1
Impact Installation.................. 30 50 strikes................ 100 4 119 54 4 <0.1
24 50 strikes................ 54 2 65 29 3 <0.1
20 50 strikes................ 54 2 65 29 3 <0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Please refer to Table 6-4 of ADOT's IHA application for hearing group-specific areas.
\b\ Includes vibratory installation and removal.
[[Page 6004]]
Table 14--Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths, by Hearing Group for Simultaneous Use of Two DTH Hammers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment isopleth (m)
Activity combination -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF MF HF PW OW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-in pile, 8-in pile............ 206 7 245 110 8
8-in pile, 24-in pile........... 1,297 46 1,545 694 51
8-in pile, 30-in pile........... 2,796 99 3,329 1,496 109
24-in pile, 24-in pile.......... 1,431 51 1,705 766 56
24-in pile, 30-in............... 2,268 81 2,702 1,214 88
30-in pile, 30-in pile.......... 3,084 110 3,673 1,650 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding implications for impact hammers used in combination with
a vibratory hammer or DTH drill, the likelihood of these multiple
sources' isopleths to completely overlap in time is slim primarily
because impact pile driving is intermittent. Furthermore, non-
impulsive, continuous sources rely upon non-impulsive TTS/PTS
thresholds, while impact pile driving uses impulsive thresholds, making
it difficult to calculate isopleths that may overlap from impact
driving and the simultaneous action of a non-impulsive continuous
source or one with multiple strikes per second. Thus, with such slim
potential for multiple different sources' isopleths to overlap in space
and time, specifications should be entered as ``normal'' into the User
Spreadsheet for each individual source separately.
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. Additionally, we describe how the occurrence information
is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate for each
phase. A summary of proposed take, including as a percentage of
population for each of the species, is shown in Table 15.
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lion abundance in the Tongass Narrows area is not well
known. No systematic studies of Steller sea lions have been conducted
in or near the Tongass Narrows area. Steller sea lions are known to
occur year-round and local residents report observing Steller sea lions
approximately once or twice per week (based on communication outlined
in Section 6 of ADOT's IHA application). Abundance appears to increase
during herring runs (March to May) and salmon runs (July to September).
Group sizes may reach up to 6 to 10 individuals (Freitag 2017 as cited
in 83 FR 37473; August 1, 2018), though groups of up to 80 individuals
have been observed (HDR, Inc. 2003).
ADOT conservatively estimates that one group of 10 Steller sea
lions may be present in the project area each day, but this occurrence
rate may as much as double (20 Steller sea lions per day) during
periods of increased abundance associated with the herring and salmon
runs (March to May and July to September). Therefore, ADOT anticipates
that two large groups (20 individuals) may be taken by Level B
harassment each day during these months. To be conservative, we assume
all 91 days of work could be completed during these months of increased
abundance and thus estimate 1,820 potential takes by Level B harassment
of Steller sea lions in Tongass Narrows (i.e., 2 groups of 10 sea lions
per day x 91 construction days = 1,820 takes by Level B harassment;
Table 15).
ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers (any
combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On those
days, Level B harassment zones would extend into Clarence Strait.
Steller sea lions are known to swim across Clarence Strait and to use
offshore areas with deeper waters, although no estimates of at-sea
density or abundance in Clarence Strait are available. Therefore, ADOT
has conservatively estimated, and NMFS concurs, that during the 44 days
with potential simultaneous use of two hammers, a group of 10 Steller
sea lions may occur in the portion of the Level B harassment zone in
Clarence Strait each day (one group of 10 sea lions per day x 44 days =
440 individuals). Therefore, the preliminary sum of estimated takes by
Level B harassment of Steller sea lions between Tongass Narrows and
Clarence Strait is 2,260 (1,820 + 440 = 2,260 takes by Level B
harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds could
extend 140 m from the noise source for 10 hours of DTH using a single
hammer, or 120 m from the noise source for 4 hours of DTH using two
hammers for 30-in piles simultaneously. (As noted previously, ADOT
estimates that simultaneous use of any two hammer types would occur on
no more than 44 days). Zones for shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). For some DTH activities, the estimated
Level A harassment zone is larger than the proposed shutdown zone, and
therefore, some Level A harassment could occur. Further, while
unlikely, it is possible that a Steller sea lion could enter a shutdown
zone without detection given the various obstructions along the
shoreline, and remain in the zone long enough to be taken by Level A
harassment before being observed and a shutdown occurring. ADOT
therefore requests, and NMFS proposes to authorize, one take by Level A
harassment on each of the 91 construction days (91 takes by Level A
harassment). Take by Level B harassment proposed for authorization was
calculated as the total calculated Steller sea lion takes by Level B
harassment minus the takes by Level A harassment (2,260 takes-91 takes
by Level A harassment) for a total of 2,169 takes by Level B
harassment. Therefore, ADOT requests, and NMFS proposes to authorize,
91 takes of Steller sea lion by Level A harassment and 2,169 takes of
Steller sea lion by Level B harassment (2,260 total takes of Steller
sea lion; Table 15).
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. They are known to occur year-round with little
seasonal variation in abundance (Freitag 2017 as cited in 83 FR 37473;
August 1, 2018) 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. NMFS
has indicated that the maximum group size in Tongass Narrows is three
individuals (83 FR 22009; May 11, 2018); however, ADOT monitoring in
March 2021
[[Page 6005]]
observed several groups of up to 5 individuals. Based on this
knowledge, the expected maximum group size in Tongass Narrows is five
individuals. Harbor seals are known to be curious and may approach
novel activity. For these reasons ADOT conservatively estimates that up
to two groups of 5 harbor seals per group could be taken by Level B
harassment due to project-related underwater noise each construction
day for a total of 910 takes by Level B harassment of harbor seal in
Tongass Narrows (i.e., 2 groups of 5 harbor seals per day x 91
construction days = 910 total takes by Level B harassment of harbor
seal; Table 15).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers
(any combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On
those days, Level B harassment zones would extend into Clarence Strait.
Harbor seals are known to swim across Clarence Strait, although no
estimates of at-sea density or abundance in Clarence Strait are
available. It is likely that harbor seal abundance in Clarence Strait
is lower than in Tongass Narrows, as harbor seals generally prefer
nearshore waters. Therefore, ADOT has conservatively estimated, and
NMFS concurs, that during the 44 days with potential simultaneous use
of two hammers, a group of 5 harbor seals may occur in the portion of
the Level B harassment zone in Clarence Strait each day (one group of 5
harbor seals per day x 44 days = 220 individuals). Therefore, the sum
of total estimated takes by Level B harassment of harbor seals between
Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait is 1,130 (910 + 220 = 1,130 takes
by Level B harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone for harbor seals could extend
1,918 m from the noise source for 10 hours of DTH using a single
hammer, or 1,640 m from the noise source for 4 hours of DTH using two
hammers for 30-in piles simultaneously. (As noted previously, ADOT
estimates that simultaneous use of any two hammer types would occur on
no more than 44 days). Zones for shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). Due to practicability concerns, NMFS
proposes to require a 200 m shutdown zone for harbor seals during 24-in
and 30-in DTH activities (Table 16). Therefore, for some DTH
activities, the estimated Level A harassment zone is larger than the
proposed shutdown zone, and therefore, some Level A harassment could
occur. Harbor seals may enter and remain within the area between the
Level A harassment zone and the shutdown zone for a duration long
enough to be taken by Level A harassment. Additionally, while unlikely,
it is possible that a harbor seal could enter a shutdown zone without
detection given the various obstructions along the shoreline, and
remain in the zone for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A
harassment before being observed and a shutdown occurring.
To calculate take by Level A harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using a
single hammer minus the shutdown zone isopleth (1,918 m-200 m shutdown
zone = 1,718 m) to the Level B harassment zone isopleth (13,594 m;
1,718 m/13,594 m = 0.1264). ADOT multiplied the resulting ratio by the
total potential take in Tongass Narrows, resulting in 116 takes by
Level A harassment (i.e., 910 takes by Level B harassment x 0.1264 =
116 takes by Level A harassment). NMFS reviewed, and concurs with and
adopts this method. (Potential operation of two DTH hammers for 24-in/
30-in or 30-in/30-in pile combinations would result in larger Level A
harassment isopleths than 1,918 m, however, such concurrent work would
rarely occur, if at all, and therefore, NMFS expects that calculating
Level A harassment take using those zones would be overly conservative
and unrealistic. Moreover, since the method used above assumes 30-inch
DTH on all days it provided a precautionary cushion since activities
with smaller Level A harassment zone sizes will occur on many days.)
Take by Level B harassment proposed for authorization was calculated as
the total calculated harbor seal takes by Level B harassment minus the
takes by Level A harassment (1,130 takes-116 takes by Level A
harassment) for a total of 1,014 takes by Level B harassment. ADOT
therefore requests, and NMFS proposes to authorize, 116 takes of harbor
seal by Level A harassment and 1,014 takes of harbor seal by Level B
harassment (1,130 total takes of harbor seal, Table 15).
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, our 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). ADOT's 2020 and 2021 monitoring program in
Tongass Narrows did not result in sightings of this species; however,
ADOT assumes an occurrence rate of one group per month in the following
take estimations. For our analysis, we are considering a group to
consist of five animals. Based on Freitag (2017), and supported by the
reports of knowledgeable locals as described in ADOT's application,
ADOT estimates that one group of five harbor porpoises could enter
Tongass Narrows and potentially taken by Level B harassment due to
project-related noise each month for a total of 15 potential harbor
porpoise takes by Level B harassment in Tongass Narrows (i.e., 1 group
of 5 individuals x 3 months (91 days) = 15 harbor porpoises).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers
(any combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On
those days, the Level B harassment zone would extend into Clarence
Strait. Harbor porpoises are known to swim across Clarence Strait and
to use other areas of deep, open waters. Dahlheim et al. (2015)
estimated a density of 0.02 harbor porpoises/km\2\ in an area that
encompasses Clarence Strait. ADOT estimates, and NMFS concurs that
during the 44 days with potential simultaneous use of two hammers, 17
harbor porpoises (0.02 harbor porpoises/km\2\ x 18.5 km\2\ x 44 days =
17 harbor porpoises) may occur in the portion of the Level B harassment
zone in Clarence Strait during the project (though ADOT and NMFS
anticipate that this is a conservative estimate, given the entire 18.5
km\2\ area would rarely be ensonified above the Level B harassment
threshold). Therefore, the sum of total estimated takes by Level B
harassment of harbor porpoise between Tongass Narrows and Clarence
Strait is 32 (15 + 17 = 32 takes by Level B harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone for harbor porpoises extends
4,269 m from the noise source for 10 hours of DTH using a single
hammer, and 3,673 m from the noise source for 4 hours of DTH using two
hammers for 30-in piles simultaneously. (As noted previously, ADOT
estimates that simultaneous use of any two hammer types would occur on
no more than 44 days). Zones for shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). Due to practicability concerns, NMFS
proposes to require a 500 m shutdown zone for high frequency cetaceans
during 24-in and 30-in DTH activities. Therefore, for some DTH
activities, the estimated Level A harassment zone is larger than the
proposed shutdown zone, and therefore, some Level A harassment could
occur. Harbor porpoises may enter and remain within the area between
the Level A harassment zone
[[Page 6006]]
and the shutdown zone for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A
harassment. Additionally, given the large size of required shutdown
zones for some activities and the cryptic nature of harbor porpoises,
it is possible that a harbor porpoise could enter a shutdown zone
without detection and remain in the zone for a duration long enough to
be taken by Level A harassment before being observed and a shutdown
occurring.
To calculate take by Level A harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using a
single hammer minus the shutdown zone isopleth (4,269 m-500 m = 3,769
m) to the Level B harassment zone isopleth (13,594 m; 3,769/13,594 =
0.2773). ADOT multiplied the resulting ratio by the total potential
take in Tongass Narrows, resulting in 5 takes by Level A harassment
(i.e., 15 takes by Level B harassment x 0.2773 = 5 takes by Level A
harassment). NMFS reviewed and concurs with this method. (Potential
operation of two DTH hammers for 24-in/30-in or 30-in/30-in pile
combinations would result in larger Level A harassment isopleths than
4,269 m, however, such concurrent work would rarely occur, if at all,
and therefore, as described above, NMFS expects that calculating Level
A harassment take using those zones is unnecessary.) Take by Level B
harassment proposed for authorization was calculated as the total
calculated harbor porpoise takes by Level B harassment minus the takes
by Level A harassment (32 takes-5 takes by Level A harassment) for a
total of 27 takes by Level B harassment. ADOT therefore requests and
NMFS proposes to authorize 5 takes by Level A harassment and 27 takes
by Level B harassment (32 total takes of harbor porpoise, Table 15).
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoises are expected to only occur in the project area a
few times per year. Their relative rarity is supported by Jefferson et
al.'s (2019) presentation of historical survey data showing very few
sightings in the Ketchikan area and conclusion that Dall's porpoise
generally are rare in narrow waterways, like the Tongass Narrows.
ADOT's monitoring program from 2020 and 2021 recorded one sighting of 6
individuals over 23 days of observation, 16 days of observations with
no sightings, and two sightings of 10 individuals in 14 days of
observation; this equates to one sighting every approximately 17 days
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d) or approximately two
sightings per month. This species is non-migratory; therefore, the
occurrence estimates are not dependent on season. ADOT anticipates that
one large Dall's porpoise pod (12 individuals) may be present in the
project area and exposed to project related underwater noise twice each
month during 3 months of construction (91 days rounded to 3 months) for
a total of 72 potential takes by Level B harassment in Tongass Narrows
(i.e.,2 groups of 12 Dall's porpoises per month x 3 months = 72
potential takes by Level B harassment).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers
(any combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On
those days, the Level B harassment zone would extend into Clarence
Strait, where Dall's porpoises are known to occur. Jefferson et al.
(2019) estimated an average density of 0.19 Dall's porpoises/km\2\ in
Southeast Alaska. ADOT estimates, and NMFS concurs, that during the 44
days with potential simultaneous use of two hammers, 155 Dall's
porpoises (0.19 Dall's porpoises/km\2\ x 18.5 km\2\ x 44 days = 155
Dall's porpoises) may occur in the portion of the Level B harassment
zone in Clarence Strait during the project (though ADOT and NMFS
anticipate that this is a conservative estimate, given the entire 18.5
km\2\ area would rarely be ensonified above the Level B harassment
threshold). Therefore, the sum of total estimated takes by Level B
harassment of harbor porpoise between Tongass Narrows and Clarence
Strait is 227 (72 + 155 = 227 takes by Level B harassment).
The largest Level A harassment zone for Dall's porpoises extends
4,269 m from the noise source for 10 hours of DTH using a single
hammer, and m from the noise source for 4 hours of DTH using two
hammers for 30-in piles simultaneously. (As noted previously, ADOT
estimates that simultaneous use of any two hammer types would occur on
no more than 44 days). Zones for shorter durations and other activities
would be smaller (Table 13). Due to practicability concerns, NMFS
proposes to require a 500 m shutdown zone for high frequency cetaceans
during 24-in and 30-in DTH activities. Therefore, for some DTH
activities, the estimated Level A harassment zone is larger than the
proposed shutdown zone, and therefore, some Level A harassment could
occur. Dall's porpoises may enter and remain within the area between
the Level A harassment zone and the shutdown zone and be exposed to
sound levels for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A
harassment. Additionally, given the large size of the required shutdown
zones for some activities, it is possible that a Dall's porpoise could
enter a shutdown zone without detection and remain in the zone for a
duration long enough to taken by Level A harassment before being
observed and a shutdown occurring.
To calculate take by Level A harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using a
single hammer minus the shutdown zone isopleth (4,269 m-500 m = 3,769
m) to the Level B harassment zone isopleth (13,594 m; 3,769/13,594 =
0.2773). ADOT multiplied the resulting ratio by the total potential
take in Tongass Narrows, resulting in 20 takes by Level A harassment
(i.e., 72 takes by Level B harassment x 0.2773 = 20 takes by Level A
harassment). NMFS revised and concurs with this method. (Potential
operation of two DTH hammers for 24-in/30-in or 30-in/30-in pile
combinations would result in larger Level A harassment isopleths than
4,269 m, however, such concurrent work would rarely occur, if at all,
and therefore, as described above, NMFS expects that calculating Level
A harassment take using those zones is unnecessary.) Take by Level B
harassment proposed for authorization was calculated as the total
calculated Dall's porpoise takes by Level B harassment minus the takes
by Level A harassment (227 takes-20 takes by Level A harassment) for a
total of 207 takes by Level B harassment. ADOT therefore requests and
NMFS proposes to authorize 20 takes by Level A harassment, and 207
takes by Level B harassment (227 total takes of Dall's porpoise, Table
15).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins do not generally occur in the shallow,
inland waterways of Southeast Alaska. There are no records of this
species occurring in Tongass Narrows, and it is uncommon for
individuals to occur in the proposed project area. However, historical
sightings in nearby areas (Dahlheim and Towell 1994; Muto et al. 2018)
and recent fluctuations in distribution and abundance mean it is
possible the species could be present.
To account for the possibility that this species could be present
in the project area, ADOT conservatively estimates, and NMFS concurs,
that one large group (92 individuals) of Pacific white-sided dolphins
may be taken by Level B harassment in Tongass Narrows during the
proposed activity.
As noted above, ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers
(any combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On
those days, the Level B harassment zone would
[[Page 6007]]
extend into Clarence Strait. However, no additional takes of Pacific
white-sided dolphin are anticipated to occur due to simultaneous use of
two hammers, given that Pacific white-sided dolphins are uncommon in
the project area. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 92 takes by
Level B harassment of Pacific white-sided dolphins.
ADOT did not request, nor does NMFS propose to authorize take by
Level A harassment for this activity given that Pacific white-sided
dolphins are uncommon in the project area. Further, considering the
small Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans (Table 13
and Table 14) in comparison to the required shutdown zones, it is
unlikely that a Pacific white-sided dolphin would enter and remain
within the area between the Level A harassment zone and the shutdown
zone for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A harassment.
Killer Whale
Killer whales are observed in Tongass Narrows irregularly with
peaks in abundance between May and July. During 7 months of
intermittent marine mammal monitoring (October 2020-February 2021; May-
June 2021), there were five killer whale sightings in 4 months
(November, February, May, June) totaling 22 animals; sightings occurred
on 5 out of 88 days of monitoring (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c,
2021d). Pod sizes ranged from two to eight animals (DOT&PF 2020, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Previous incidental take authorizations in the
Ketchikan area have estimated killer whale occurrence in Tongass
Narrows at one pod per month, except during the peak period of May to
July when estimates have included two pods per month (Freitag 2017 as
cited in 83 FR 37473; August 1, 2018 and 83 FR 34134; July 17, 2019).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers
(any combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On
those days, the Level B harassment zone would extend into Clarence
Strait. In estimating take by Level B harassment, ADOT assumed a pod
size of 12 killer whales, that all 91 days of work would occur between
May and July during the peaks in abundance, and that therefore, 2 pods
may occur within the Level B harassment zone (including both Tongass
Narrows and Clarence Strait) during each month of work, for a total of
72 takes by Level B harassment (2 groups x 12 individuals x 3 months =
72 killer whales). Therefore, ADOT estimates that a total of 72 killer
whales may be taken by Level B harassment (i.e., 2 pods of 12
individuals per month x 3 months (91 days) = 72 takes by Level B
harassment). NMFS reviewed and concurs with this method, and proposes
to authorize 72 takes by Level B harassment of killer whale.
ADOT did not request, nor does NMFS propose to authorize take by
Level A harassment of killer whales for this activity. Considering the
small Level A harassment zones for mid-frequency cetaceans (Table 13
and Table 14) in comparison to the required shutdown zones, it is
unlikely that a killer whale would enter and remain within the area
between the Level A harassment zone and the shutdown zone for a
duration long enough to be taken by Level A harassment.
Humpback Whale
As discussed in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of
Specified Activities section, locals have observed humpback whales an
average of about once per week in Tongass Narrows, but there is
evidence to suggest occurrence may be higher during some periods of the
year. The December 19, 2019 Biological Opinion stated that based on
observations by local experts, approximately one group of two
individuals would occur in Tongass Narrows during ADOT's activity two
times per seven days during pile driving, pile removal, and DTH
activities throughout the year. The assumption was based on differences
in abundance throughout the year, recent observations of larger groups
of whales present during summer, and a higher than average frequency of
occurrence in recent months (NMFS 2019). ADOT's 2020 and 2021
monitoring program documented a similar sighting rate, with 30 humpback
whale sightings over 53 days of in-water pile driving; some of the
sightings were believed to be repeated sightings of the same individual
(DOT&PF 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). ADOT therefore predicts, and
NMFS concurs, that one group of two individuals may occur within the
Level B harassment zones twice per week during the proposed activities.
As noted previously, ADOT estimates that pile driving would occur over
the course of 91 days (13 weeks). Therefore, ADOT estimates, and NMFS
concurs that 52 takes by Level B harassment of humpback whales (1 group
of 2 individuals x 2 groups per week x 13 weeks = 52 takes by Level B
harassment) from the Central North Pacific stock may occur in Tongass
Narrows.
As noted above, ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers
(any combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On
those days, the Level B harassment zone would extend into Clarence
Strait. Local specialists estimated that approximately four humpback
whales could pass through or near the portion of the Level B harassment
zone in Clarence Strait each day. Therefore, ADOT estimates, and NMFS
concurs, that during the 44 days with potential simultaneous use of two
hammers, 176 takes by Level B harassment of humpback whale could occur
in Clarence Strait (4 humpback whales x 44 days = 176 takes by Level B
harassment). Therefore, the sum of total estimated takes by Level B
harassment of humpback whale between Tongass Narrows and Clarence
Strait is 228 (52 + 176 = 228 takes by Level B harassment), and NMFS
proposes to authorize 228 takes by Level B harassment of humpback
whale.
As noted previously, Wade et al. (2021) estimates that
approximately 2 percent of all humpback whales in Southeast Alaska and
northern British Columbia are of the Mexico DPS, while all others are
of the Hawaii DPS. However, NMFS has conservatively assumed here that
6.1 percent of the total humpback population in Southeast Alaska is
from the Mexico DPS (Wade et al. 2016). Therefore, of the 228 takes of
humpback whale proposed for authorization, NMFS expects that a total of
14 takes would be of individuals from the Mexico DPS. NMFS expects that
all other instances of proposed take would be from the non-listed
Hawaii DPS.
Take by Level A harassment of humpback whales is neither
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized because of the expected
effectiveness of the required monitoring and mitigation measures (see
Proposed Mitigation section below for more details). For all pile
driving and DTH activities, the shutdown zone exceeds the calculated
Level A harassment zone. Humpbacks are usually readily visible, and
therefore, we expect PSOs to be able to effectively implement the
required shutdown measures prior to any humpback whales incurring PTS
within Level A harassment zones.
Minke Whales
Minke whales may be present in Tongass Narrows year-round. Their
abundance throughout Southeast Alaska is very low, and anecdotal
reports have not included minke whales near the project area. ADOT's
monitoring program in Tongass Narrows also did not report any minke
whale sightings. However, minke whales are distributed throughout a
wide variety of habitats and could occur near the project area.
[[Page 6008]]
Minke whales are generally sighted as solo individuals (Dahlheim et al.
2009).
As noted above, ADOT estimates that simultaneous use of two hammers
(any combination) could occur on up to 44 days during the project. On
those days, the Level B harassment zone would extend into Clarence
Strait. Based on Freitag (2017; as cited in 83 FR 37473; August 1, 2018
and 83 FR 34134; July 17, 2019), ADOT estimates that three individual
minke whales may occur near or within the Level B harassment zone
(including both Tongass Narrows and Clarence Strait) every four months.
Based on that estimated occurrence rate, NMFS estimates that three
minke whales may occur in the Level B harassment zone during the
proposed activities (occurring over approximately 3 months), and
proposes to authorize 3 takes by Level B harassment of minke whales
(Table 15).
The largest Level A harassment zone for minke whale extends 3,584 m
from the noise source for 10 hours of DTH using a single hammer, and
3,084 m from the noise source for 4 hours of DTH using two hammers for
30-in piles simultaneously. (As noted previously, ADOT estimates that
simultaneous use of any two hammer types would occur on no more than 44
days.) Zones for shorter durations and other activities would be
smaller (Table 14). NMFS proposes to require a 1,500 m shutdown zone
for minke whales during 24-in and 30-in DTH activities. Therefore, for
some DTH activities, the estimated Level A harassment zone is larger
than the proposed shutdown zone, and Level A harassment could occur.
To calculate take by Level A harassment, ADOT first calculated the
ratio of the maximum Level A harassment isopleth for 30-in DTH using a
single hammer minus the shutdown zone isopleth (3,584 m-1,500 m = 2,084
m) to the Level B harassment zone isopleth (13,594 m; 2,084 m/13,594 m
= 0.1533). ADOT multiplied the resulting ratio by the total potential
take by Level B harassment, resulting in 1 take by Level A harassment
(i.e., 3 takes by Level B harassment x 0.1533 = 1 take by Level A
harassment). NMFS reviewed and concurs with this method. (Potential
operation of two DTH hammers for 24-in/30-in or 30-in/30-in pile
combinations would result in larger Level A harassment isopleths than
4,269 m, however, such concurrent work would rarely occur, if at all,
and therefore, as described above NMFS expects that calculating Level A
harassment take using those zones is unnecessary.) Take by Level B
harassment was calculated as the total potential minke whale takes by
Level B harassment minus the takes by Level A harassment. ADOT
therefore requests, and NMFS proposes to authorize 1 take by Level A
harassment and 2 takes by Level B harassment (3 total takes of minke
whale, Table 15).
Table 15--Proposed Amount of Take as a Percentage of Stock Abundance, by Stock and Harassment Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed authorized take
------------------------------------------------ Percent of
Species DPS/stock Level A Level B stock
harassment harassment Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion.............. Eastern U.S..... 91 2,169 2,260 5.2
Harbor seal................... Clarence Strait. 116 1,014 1,130 4.1
Harbor porpoise............... Southeast Alaska 5 27 32 2.5
Dall's porpoise............... Alaska.......... 20 207 227 1.7
Pacific white-sided dolphin... North Pacific... 0 92 92 0.3
Killer whale.................. Alaska Resident. .............. .............. .............. \a\ 3.1
West Coast 0 72 72 \a\ 20.1
Transient.
Northern .............. .............. .............. \a\ 23.8
Resident.
Humpback whale................ Central North 0 228 228 \b\ 2.3
Pacific.
Minke whale................... Alaska.......... 1 2 3 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental
take authorizations to include information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and
manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and
their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Because of the need for an ESA Section 7 consultation for effects
of the project on ESA listed humpback whales, there are a number of
mitigation measures that go beyond, or are in addition to, typical
mitigation measures we would otherwise require for this sort of
project. The proposed measures are however typical for actions in the
Ketchikan area. The mitigation measures included herein include
measures that align with the 2019 Biological Opinion, and are subject
to change, as required by NMFS' ESA Section 7 consultation. If Section
7 consultation warrants changes to these measures, NMFS expects that
the new measures would align closely with those included in the recent
proposed IHA for construction at the NOAA Port Facility
[[Page 6009]]
Project in Ketchikan, Alaska (86 FR 68223; December 1, 2021). ADOT must
employ the following mitigation measures as included in the proposed
IHA:
Avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals
during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of
such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to
the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working
conditions (note that NMFS expects that a 10 m shutdown zone is
sufficient to avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals,
but ADOT has conservatively proposed a 20 m shutdown zone to avoid
physical interaction for in-water other than vessel transit);
Ensure that construction supervisors and crews, the
monitoring team and relevant ADOT staff are trained prior to the start
of all pile driving and DTH activity, so that responsibilities,
communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational
procedures are clearly understood. New personnel joining during the
project must be trained prior to commencing work;
Pile driving activity must be halted upon observation of
either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a
species for which incidental take has been authorized but the
authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the
harassment zone;
For any marine mammal species for which take by Level B
harassment has not been requested or authorized, in-water pile
installation/removal and DTH will shut down immediately when the
animals are sighted;
Employ PSOs and establish monitoring locations as
described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and Section 5 of the
IHA. The Holder must monitor the project area to the maximum extent
possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring
locations, and environmental conditions. For all pile driving and
removal at least three PSOs must be used;
The placement of the PSOs during all pile driving and
removal and DTH activities will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is
visible during pile installation;
Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to
initiation of pile driving or DTH activity (i.e., pre-clearance
monitoring) through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving or DTH
activity;
If in-water work ceases for more than 30 minutes, ADOT
will conduct pre-clearance monitoring of both the Level B harassment
zone and shutdown zone;
Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during
periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the
shutdown zones indicated in Table 16 are clear of marine mammals. Pile
driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the
determination is made that the shutdown zones are clear of marine
mammals;
If a marine mammal is observed entering or within the
shutdown zones indicated in Table 16, pile driving must be delayed or
halted. If pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a
marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the
animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone (Table 16) or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection
of the animal (30 minutes for humpback whales);
As required by the 2019 Biological Opinion, if waters
exceed a sea state that restricts the PSOs' ability to make
observations within the shutdown zone, in-water pile installation and
removal will cease. Pile installation and removal will not be initiated
or continue until the appropriate shutdown zone is visible in its
entirety;
For humpback whales, if the boundaries of the harassment
zone have not been monitored continuously during a work stoppage, the
entire harassment zone will be surveyed again to ensure that no
humpback whales have entered the harassment zone that were not
previously accounted for;
In-water activities will take place only: Between civil
dawn and civil dusk when PSOs can effectively monitor for the presence
of marine mammals; during conditions with a Beaufort Sea State of 4 or
less; when the entire shutdown zone and adjacent waters are visible
(e.g., monitoring effectiveness is not reduced due to rain, fog, snow,
etc.). Pile driving may continue for up to 30 minutes after sunset
during evening civil twilight, as necessary to secure a pile for safety
prior to demobilization for the evening. PSO(s) will continue to
observe shutdown and monitoring zones during this time. The length of
the post- activity monitoring period may be reduced if darkness
precludes visibility of the shutdown and monitoring zones;
Vessel operators will implement the following required
measures: Maintain a watch for marine mammals at all times while
underway; remain at least and at least 91 m (100 yards (yd)) from all
other listed marine mammals, travel at less than 5 knots (9 km/hr) when
within 274 m (300 yd) of a whale; avoid changes in direction and speed
when within 274 m (300 yd) of whales, unless doing so is necessary for
maritime safety; not position vessel(s) in the path of whales, and will
not cut in front of whales in a way or at a distance that causes the
whales to change their direction of travel or behavior (including
breathing/surfacing pattern); check the waters immediately adjacent to
the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the
propellers are engaged; adhere to the Alaska Humpback Whale Approach
Regulations when transiting to and from the project site (see 50 CFR
216.18, 223.214, and 224.103(b)); not allow lines to remain in the
water, and not throw trash or other debris overboard, thereby reducing
the potential for marine mammal entanglement; follow established
transit routes and travel <10 knots while in the harassment zones;
follow the speed limit within Tongass Narrows (7 knots for vessels over
23 ft in length). If a whale's course and speed are such that it will
likely cross in front of a vessel that is underway, or approach within
91 m (100 yards (yd)) of the vessel, and if maritime conditions safely
allow, the engine will be put in neutral and the whale will be allowed
to pass beyond the vessel, except that vessels will remain 460 m (500
yd) from North Pacific right whales; if a humpback whale comes within
10 m (32.8 ft) of a vessel during construction, the vessel will reduce
speed to the minimum level required to maintain safe steerage and
working conditions until the humpback whale is at least 10 m (32.8 ft)
away from the vessel; vessels are prohibited from disrupting the normal
behavior or prior activity of a whale by any other act or omission.
ADOT must use soft start techniques when impact pile
driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of
three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting
period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. A soft start
must 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
30 minutes or longer; and
If take by Level B harassment reaches the authorized limit
for an authorized species, pile installation will be stopped as these
species approach the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take
of them.
Further, on days when simultaneous use of two hammers producing
continuous noise (two DTH hammers, one DTH and one vibratory hammer, or
two vibratory hammers) is expected:
[[Page 6010]]
When combinations of one DTH hammer with a vibratory
hammer or two DTH hammers are used simultaneously, each PSO of the two
contractors will have three PSOs working and the PSO teams will work
together to monitor the entire area;
One or more PSOs will be present at each construction site
during in-water pile installation and removal so that Level A
harassment zones and shutdown zones are monitored by a dedicated PSO at
all times.
The ADOT environmental coordinator for the project will
implement coordination between or among the PSO contractors. ADOT will
include in the contracts that PSOs must coordinate, collaborate, and
otherwise work together to ensure compliance with project permits and
authorizations.
The following specific mitigation measures will also apply to
ADOT's in-water construction activities:
Establishment of Level A Harassment Zones and Shutdown Zones--For
all pile driving/removal and DTH activities, ADOT will establish a
shutdown zone (Table 16). The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally
to define an area within which shutdown of activity would occur upon
sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering
the defined area). Shutdown zones vary based on the activity type and
duration and marine mammal hearing group (Table 16). For vibratory
installation and removal and impact installation, shutdown zones will
be based on the Level A harassment isopleth distances for each hearing
group.
ADOT anticipates that the daily duration of DTH use may vary
significantly, with large differences in maximum zones sizes possible
depending on the work planned for a given day. Given this uncertainty
and concerns related to ESA-listed humpback whales, ADOT would utilize
a tiered system to identify and monitor the appropriate Level A
harassment zones and shutdown zones, based on the maximum expected DTH
duration. At the start of any work involving DTH, ADOT would first
determine whether DTH may occur at two sites concurrently or just at
one site. If DTH may occur at two sites concurrently, then ADOT would
implement the Level A harassment zones and shutdown zones associated
with simultaneous DTH use of the relevant pile sizes (Table 14 and
Table 16). If DTH may only occur at one site, ADOT would then determine
the maximum duration of DTH possible that day (according to the defined
duration intervals in Table 16), which would determine the appropriate
Level A harassment isopleth for that day (Table 13 and Table 14). This
Level A harassment zone and associated shutdown zone must be observed
by PSO(s) for the entire work day or until it is determined that, given
the duration of activity for the day, the Level A harassment isopleth
cannot exceed the next lower Level A harassment isopleth size in Table
13.
Due to practicability concerns, shutdown zones for some species
during some activities may be smaller than the Level A harassment
isopleths (Table 16). The placement of PSOs during all pile driving,
pile removal, and DTH activities (described in detail in the Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting Section) will ensure that the entire shutdown
zones are visible during pile installation.
Table 16--Shutdown Zones and Level B Harassment Isopleths for Each Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes per Shutdown distances (m) Level B
Pile size pile or --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- harassment
Activity (in) strikes per LF (humpback LF (minke isopleth
pile whales) whales) MF HF PW OW (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory Installation......... 30 60 min 50 20 6,310
24 60 min 5,412
20 60 min
Vibratory Removal.............. 24 60 min
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH of Rock Sockets............ 30 60 min 780 1,500 30 500 200 40 13,594
120 min 1,300 50 50
180 min 1,700 60 70
240 min 2,000 70 80
300 min 2,300 90 90
360 min 2,600 100 100
420 min 2,900
480 min 3,100
540 min 3,400
600 min 3,600 130 100
24 60 min 360 1,500 20 500 200 20
120 min 570 30 30
180 min 750 30 30
240 min 910 40 40
300 min 1,100 40 50
360 min 1,200 50 50
420 min 1,400 50 60
480 min 1,500 60 60
540 min 1,600 60 70
600 min 1,700 60 70
DTH of Tension Anchor.......... 8 120 min 90 90 20 100 50 20
240 min 130 130 160 70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Installation............ 30 50 strikes 100 100 20 120 60 20 2,154
24 50 strikes 60 60 70 30 1,000
20 50 strikes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17--Shutdown Zones, by Hearing Group for Simultaneous Use of Two DTH Hammers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment isopleth (m)
Activity combination ----------------------------------------------------------------
LF MF HF PW OW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-in pile, 8-in pile........................... 210 20 250 110 20
[[Page 6011]]
8-in pile, 24-in pile.......................... 1,300 50 500 200 60
8-in pile, 30-in pile.......................... 2,800 100 110
24-in pile, 24-in pile......................... 1,440 60 60
24-in pile, 30-in.............................. 2,270 90 90
30-in pile, 30-in pile......................... 3,090 110 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOT also must abide by the terms and conditions of the December
19, 2019 Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement issued by
NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as 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).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring
Monitoring must be conducted by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in
accordance with the following:
PSOs must be independent (i.e., not construction
personnel) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods.
At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a
PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued IHA. Other
PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in
biological science or related field), or training for prior experience
performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to
a NMFS-issued IHA. Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a
lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead
observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO
during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take
authorization. PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any
activity subject to this IHA; and
PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals as
described in the Section 5 of the IHA and the Marine Mammal Monitoring
Plan, regardless of distance from the pile being driven. PSOs shall
document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles
being driven or removed;
PSOs must 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;
Additionally, as required by NMFS' December 2019 Biological
Opinion, each PSO will be trained and provided with reference materials
to ensure standardized and accurate observations and data collection.
ADOT must employ three PSOs during all pile driving and DTH. A
minimum of one PSO (the lead PSO) must be assigned to the active pile
driving or DTH location to monitor the shutdown zones and as much of
the Level B harassment zones as possible. Two additional PSOs are also
required, though the observation points may vary depending on the
construction activity and location of the piles. To select the best
observation locations, prior to start of construction, the lead PSO
will stand at the construction site to monitor the Level A harassment
zones while two or more PSOs travel in opposite directions from the
project site along Tongass Narrows until they have reached the edge of
the appropriate Level B harassment zone, where they will
[[Page 6012]]
identify suitable observation points from which to observe. When
needed, an additional PSO will be stationed on the north end of Revilla
Island observing to the northwest. See Figure 2-11 of ADOT's Marine
Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for a map of proposed PSO
locations. If visibility deteriorates so that the entire width of
Tongass Narrows at the harassment zone boundary is not visible,
additional PSOs may be positioned so that the entire width is visible,
or work will be halted until the entire width is visible to ensure that
any humpback whales entering or within the harassment zone are detected
by PSOs.
When DTH use occurs, or simultaneous use of one DTH with a
vibratory hammer or two DTH systems occurs, creating Level B harassment
zones that exceed 13 km and 21 km, respectively, and Level A harassment
zones that extend over 6 km, one additional PSO will be stationed at
the northernmost land-based location at the entrance to Tongass Narrows
(at least two PSOs total at that location, four PSOs on duty across all
PSO locations). One of these PSO will focus on Tongass Narrows,
specifically watching for marine mammals that could approach or enter
Tongass Narrows and the project area. The second PSO will look out into
Clarence Strait, watching for marine mammals that could swim through
the ensonified area. No additional PSOs will be required at the
southern-most monitoring location because the Level B harassment zones
are truncated to the southeast by islands, which prevent propagation of
sound in that direction beyond the confines of Tongass Narrows. Takes
by Level B harassment will be recorded by PSOs and extrapolated based
upon the number of observed takes and the percentage of the Level B
harassment zone that was not visible.
Each construction contractor managing an active construction site
and on-going in-water pile installation or removal will provide
qualified, independent PSOs for their specific contract. The ADOT
environmental coordinator for the project will implement coordination
between or among the PSO contractors. It will be a required component
of their contracts that PSOs coordinate, collaborate, and otherwise
work together to ensure compliance with project permits and
authorizations.
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.
The report would include an overall description of work completed, a
narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO 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 the number and type of piles driven or
removed and by what method (i.e., impact, vibratory or DTH) and the
total equipment duration for vibratory removal or DTH for each pile or
hole or total number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);
PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following
information: Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and
activity at time of sighting; Time of sighting; Identification of the
animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or
unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of
the group if there is a mix of species; Distance and bearing of each
marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each
sighting (if pile driving was occurring at time of sighting); Estimated
number of animals (min/max/best estimate); Estimated number of animals
by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, sex class,
etc.); Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent
within the harassment zone; Description of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have
resulted from the activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral
state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment
zones and shutdown zones, by species;
Table summarizing any incidents resulting in take of ESA-
listed species;
Detailed information about any implementation of any
mitigation triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any;
Description of other human activity within each monitoring
period;
Description of any deviation from initial proposal in pile
numbers, pile types, average driving times, etc.;
Brief description of any impediments to obtaining reliable
observations during construction period;
Description of any impediments to complying with these
mitigation measures; and
If visibility degrades to where the PSO(s) cannot view the
entire impact or vibratory harassment zones, take of humpback whales
would be extrapolated based on the estimated percentage of the
monitoring zone that remains visible and the number of marine mammals
observed.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report would 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 must
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources (OPR)
([email protected]), NMFS and to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was
clearly caused by the specified activity, ADOT 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
[[Page 6013]]
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all species listed in
Table 2 for which take could occur, given that NMFS expects the
anticipated effects of the proposed pile driving/removal and DTH on
different marine mammal stocks to be similar in nature. Where there are
meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species,
in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected
take on the population due to differences in population status, or
impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to
inform the analysis.
Pile driving and DTH activities associated with the project, as
outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine
mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in
the form of Level B harassment and, for some species, Level A
harassment from underwater sounds generated by pile driving. Potential
takes could occur if marine mammals are present in zones ensonified
above the thresholds for Level B harassment or Level A harassment,
identified above, while activities are underway.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would
occur as a result of ADOT's planned activity given the nature of the
activity, even in the absence of required mitigation. Further, no take
by Level A harassment is anticipated for Pacific white-sided dolphin,
killer whale, or humpback whale, due to the likelihood of occurrence
and/or required mitigation measures. As stated in the mitigation
section, ADOT would implement shutdown zones that equal or exceed many
of the Level A harassment isopleths shown in Table 13. Take by Level A
harassment is authorized for some species (Steller sea lions, harbor
seals, harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoises, and minke whales) to account
for the potential that an animal could enter and remain within the area
between a Level A harassment zone and the shutdown zone for a duration
long enough to be taken by Level A harassment, and in some cases, to
account for the possibility that an animal could enter a shutdown zone
without detection given the various obstructions along the shoreline,
and remain in the Level A harassment zone for a duration long enough to
be taken by Level A harassment before being observed and a shutdown
occurring. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at
most, a small degree of PTS because animals would need to be exposed to
higher levels and/or longer duration than are expected to occur here in
order to incur any more than a small degree of PTS. Additionally, and
as noted previously, some subset of the individuals that are
behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree
of TTS for a short duration of time. Because of the small degree
anticipated, though, any PTS or TTS potentially incurred here would not
be expected to adversely impact individual fitness, let alone annual
rates of recruitment or survival.
For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited,
confined area (adjacent to the project site) of the stock's range. Take
by Level A harassment and Level B harassment would be reduced to the
level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation
measures described herein. Further the amount of take proposed to be
authorized is small when compared to stock abundance.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving, pile
removal, and DTH at the sites in Tongass Narrows are expected to be
mild, short term, and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B
harassment zones may not show any visual cues they are disturbed by
activities or they could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area,
or display other mild responses that are not observable such as changes
in vocalization patterns. Given that pile driving, pile removal, and
DTH would occur for only a portion of the project's duration and often
on nonconsecutive days, any harassment occurring would be temporary.
Additionally, many of the species present in Tongass Narrows or
Clarence Strait would only be present temporarily based on seasonal
patterns or during transit between other habitats. These temporarily
present species would be exposed to even smaller periods of noise-
generating activity, further decreasing the impacts.
For all species except humpback whales, there are no known
Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) near the project zone that would be
impacted by ADOT'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. Also, while
southeast Alaska is considered an important area for feeding humpback
whales between March and May (Ellison et al. 2012), it is not currently
designated as critical habitat for humpback whales (86 FR 21082; April
21, 2021).
More generally, there are no known calving or rookery grounds
within the project area, but anecdotal evidence from local experts
shows that marine mammals are more prevalent in Tongass Narrows and
Clarence Strait during spring and summer associated with feeding on
aggregations of fish, meaning the area may play a role in foraging.
Because ADOT's activities could occur during any season, takes may
occur during important feeding times. However, the project area
represents a small portion of available foraging habitat and impacts on
marine mammal feeding for all species, including humpback whales,
should be minimal.
Any impacts on marine mammal prey that would occur during ADOT's
planned activity would have, at most, short-term effects on foraging of
individual marine mammals, and likely no effect on the populations of
marine mammals as a whole. Indirect effects on marine mammal prey
during the
[[Page 6014]]
construction are expected to be minor, and these effects are unlikely
to cause substantial effects on marine mammals at the individual level,
with no expected effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small,
localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' annual
rates of recruitment or survival. 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 would have only minor, short-term effects on individuals.
The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of
recruitment or survival and would, therefore, not result in population-
level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed
for authorization;
Take by Level A harassment of Pacific white-sided dolphin,
killer whale, and humpback whale is not anticipated or proposed for
authorization;
ADOT would implement mitigation measures including soft-
starts for impact pile driving and shutdown zones to minimize the
numbers of marine mammals exposed to injurious levels of sound, and to
ensure that take by Level A harassment is, at most, a small degree of
PTS;
The intensity of anticipated takes by Level B harassment
is relatively low for all stocks and would not be of a duration or
intensity expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival;
The only known area of specific biological importance
covers a broad area of southeast Alaska for humpback whales, and the
project area is a very small portion of that BIA. No other known areas
of particular biological importance to any of the affected species or
stocks are impacted by the activity, including ESA-designated critical
habitat;
The project area represents a very small portion of the
available foraging area for all potentially impacted marine mammal
species and stocks and anticipated habitat impacts are minor; and
Monitoring reports from similar work in Tongass Narrows
have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under 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 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 instances of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third
of the estimated stock abundance for all stocks (see Table 15). The
number of animals that we expect to authorize to be taken from these
stocks would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks'
abundances even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual,
which is an unlikely scenario. Some individuals may return multiple
times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they
cannot be individually identified.
The Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise has no official NMFS abundance
estimate for this area, as the most recent estimate is greater than
eight years old. The most recent estimate was 13,110 animals for just a
portion of the stock's range. Therefore, the 227 takes of this stock
proposed for authorization clearly represent small numbers of this
stock.
Likewise, the Southeast Alaska stock of harbor porpoise has no
official NMFS abundance estimate as the most recent estimate is greater
than eight years old. The most recent estimate was 11,146 animals (Muto
et al. 2021) and it is highly unlikely this number has drastically
declined. Therefore, the 32 takes of this stock proposed for
authorization clearly represent small numbers of this stock.
There is no current or historical estimate of the Alaska minke
whale stock, but there are known to be over 1,000 minke whales in the
Gulf of Alaska (Muto et al. 2018) so the 3 takes proposed for
authorization clearly represent small numbers of this stock.
Additionally, the range of the Alaska stock of minke whales is
extensive, stretching from the Canadian Pacific coast to the Chukchi
Sea, and ADOT's project area impacts a small portion of this range.
Therefore, the 3 takes of minke whale proposed for authorization is
small relative to estimated survey abundance, even if each proposed
take occurred to a new individual.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaska 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.
Harbor seals are the marine mammal species most regularly harvested
for subsistence by households in Ketchikan and Saxman (a community a
few miles south of Ketchikan, on the Tongass Narrows). Eighty harbor
seals were harvested by Ketchikan residents in 2007, which ranked
fourth among all communities in Alaska that year for harvest of harbor
seals. Thirteen harbor seals were harvested by Saxman residents in
2007. In 2008, two Steller sea lions were harvested by Ketchikan-based
subsistence hunters, but this is the only record of sea lion harvest by
residents of either Ketchikan or Saxman. In 2012, the community of
Ketchikan
[[Page 6015]]
had an estimated subsistence take of 22 harbor seals and 0 Steller sea
lion (Wolf et al. 2013). NMFS is not aware of more recent data. Hunting
usually occurs in October and November (ADF&G 2009), but there are also
records of relatively high harvest in May (Wolfe et al. 2013). The
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has not recorded harvest of
cetaceans from Ketchikan or Saxman (ADF&G 2018).
All project activities would take place within the industrial area
of Tongass Narrows immediately adjacent to Ketchikan where subsistence
activities do not generally occur. Both the harbor seal and the Steller
sea lion may be temporarily displaced from the project area. The
project also would not have an adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammals for subsistence use at locations farther away, where
these construction activities are not expected to take place. Some
minor, short-term harassment of the harbor seals could occur, but given
the information above, we would not expect such harassment to have
effects on subsistence hunting activities.
Based on the description of the specified activity and the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined
that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence
uses from ADOT's proposed activities.
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 (OPR) consults internally whenever
we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with NMFS' Alaska Regional Office (AKRO).
NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize take of the Central North
Pacific stock of humpback whales, of which a portion belong to the
Mexico DPS of humpback whales, which are ESA-listed. On February 6,
2019, NMFS AKRO completed consultation with ADOT for Tongass Narrows
Project and issued a Biological Opinion. Reinitiation of formal
consultation was required to analyze changes to the action that were
not considered in the February 2019 opinion (PCTS #AKR-2018-9806/ECO
#AKRO-2018-01287). The original opinion considered the effects of only
one project component being constructed at a time and did not analyze
potential effects of concurrent pile driving which may cause effects to
the listed species that were not considered in the original opinion;
therefore, reinitiation of formal consultation was required. NMFS' AKRO
issued a revised Biological Opinion to NMFS' OPR on December 19, 2019
which concluded that issuance of IHAs to ADOT is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of Mexico DPS humpback whales. The
effects of this proposed Federal action were adequately analyzed in
NMFS' Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion
for Construction of the Tongass Narrows Project (Gravina Access),
revised December 19, 2019, which concluded that the take NMFS proposes
to authorize through this IHA would not jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or
adversely modify any designated critical habitat. Because the currently
proposed take of Mexico DPS of humpback whales exceeds that authorized
in the 2019 Biological Opinion, NMFS will need to reinitiate
consultation on this project.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to ADOT for the construction of four facilities in the
channel between Gravina Island and Revillagigedo (Revilla) Island in
Ketchikan, Alaska: The Gravina Airport Ferry Layup Facility, the
Gravina Freight Facility, the Revilla New Ferry Berth, and the Gravina
Island Shuttle Ferry Berth Facility in Tongass Narrows, Alaska
beginning in March 2022, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed
construction activities. We also request at this time comment on the
potential Renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph
below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this
IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year
Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15
days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or
nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of Proposed Activities section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: January 27, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02035 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P